ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (2 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

"Affordable Care Act"?

Based on this calculator, my insurance will now go up $600 a month (Silver Plan).

So basically, we were lied to. Instead, it's costing much, much more for lower quality health care (when you can actually get in to see a doctor, that is).

The plan is good for families making about $50k or less but it looks like I can buy my health care privately for less.

That is only the premium, you did not add the deductibles and the 10K maximum you might have to pay ON TOP of the premium AND the deductibles. No family making 50K could afford the Silver plan unless they are willing to pay over 20% of their income even before income and state taxes are paid.This plan will ensure fewer people have medical coverage because it will not be affordable to the middle class and even less to the lower end of the income scale.

Please take into consideration ALL what you will pay if you get sick, not just the high premiums.

If you don't need prescriptions then the bronze plan is the best choice, that is $200/mo. for a family of 3 making $50k. The major difference between bronze and silver is the prescription coverage - with bronze you have to meet the $5k deductible to even get any prescription coverage while the silver gets you $25 or less generics and a $500 prescription deductible for brand name drugs.

At $343 the silver plan is not cheap for the family making $50k but if need the drugs then what other choice do you have?

Plan comparisons

We forgetting the subsidies exist here?

 

[Mark Davis]

Actually you're wrong. I find his argument very plausible. I was speaking financially only, and then only for the immediate future. I was using the logic of a young person who unwisely does not look at things long term. I think it's reasonable to assume that's exactly how many if not most young people will perceive this.

And we have a lot of them now who are totally insurable and who are uninsured. Why are increasing prices for them going to result in higher participation? That doesn't make sense at all.

Sure, maybe the mandate will push more into coverage - but likely toward the catastrophic plan (if under 30) which won't have enough $ going back into the pie.

When you're young you don't see the need for insurance even if mandated. Without the enforcement there is nothing. My state had a law I had to have car insurance. When I was younger I decided the risk/reward was in the insurance companies' favor so why buy it. I went probably 5 years without insurance and luckily never needed it. There was no way for them to catch it unless you were stopped or involved in an accident. Even then other than the liability it was just a fine. I don't see more young people becoming insured because of the so called mandate. If anything the higher costs will lead to less participating.

 

[matttyl]

And people question why I said we might actually have fewer people enrolled next year than this?! We will almost definitely see that in the younger market.

 

[MaxThreshold]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

"Affordable Care Act"?

Based on this calculator, my insurance will now go up $600 a month (Silver Plan).

So basically, we were lied to. Instead, it's costing much, much more for lower quality health care (when you can actually get in to see a doctor, that is).

The plan is good for families making about $50k or less but it looks like I can buy my health care privately for less.

That is only the premium, you did not add the deductibles and the 10K maximum you might have to pay ON TOP of the premium AND the deductibles. No family making 50K could afford the Silver plan unless they are willing to pay over 20% of their income even before income and state taxes are paid.This plan will ensure fewer people have medical coverage because it will not be affordable to the middle class and even less to the lower end of the income scale.

Please take into consideration ALL what you will pay if you get sick, not just the high premiums.

If you don't need prescriptions then the bronze plan is the best choice, that is $200/mo. for a family of 3 making $50k. The major difference between bronze and silver is the prescription coverage - with bronze you have to meet the $5k deductible to even get any prescription coverage while the silver gets you $25 or less generics and a $500 prescription deductible for brand name drugs.

At $343 the silver plan is not cheap for the family making $50k but if need the drugs then what other choice do you have?

Plan comparisons

We forgetting the subsidies exist here?

Forgot to add in my previous post that I don't qualify for subsidies.

 

[matttyl]

If you don't need prescriptions then the bronze plan is the best choice, that is $200/mo. for a family of 3 making $50k. The major difference between bronze and silver is the prescription coverage - with bronze you have to meet the $5k deductible to even get any prescription coverage while the silver gets you $25 or less generics and a $500 prescription deductible for brand name drugs.

At $343 the silver plan is not cheap for the family making $50k but if need the drugs then what other choice do you have?

Plan comparisons

Isn't the point of insurance to have the coverage should you need it? I don't need any prescriptions now, but what about tomorrow, or next week, or next month? ONe prescription and the person with the Bronze plan is very likely worse off than they are today (assuming they have coverage today).

And wasn't the ACA built to increase choices and options for comsumers? Now you're saying they don't have any other choice?!

 

[the moops]

From that calculator, a family of 4 making 50 grand, can get the silver plan for 280 a month. Seems like a decent deal to me.

 

[matttyl]

Here's some fun ones -

Married couple making $62,500 per year total. He's a 33 year old tobacco user, she's 29 and non-smoker. No kids.

$8,801 per year for Silver coverage for the pair - over 14% of their BEFORE tax combined income - and still has a $2k per person deductible for medical, a $500 ded. for brand name drugs, and a $12,700 out of pocket max (over 20% of their BEFORE tax combined income, which would be AFTER their premium and deductible for a total bill of over $25,500 in one year or over 40% of their BEFORE tax income)

$7,294 per year for Bronze coverage for the pair - still 11.7% of their BEFORE tax combined income - but now a $5k per person deductible for medical/Rx and a $12,700 out of pocket max for a grand total of right at $30k total out of pocket for the year or 48% of their BEFORE tax income

Now bump the combined income to $80k, and they have a kid and now he won't be a smoker.

Over $8,900 premium per year for the Silver plan - over 11% of their before tax income. $2k per person deductible, $12,700 out of pocket max - so if just one person of the 3 has a decent size claim (lets say the kid breaks his arm playing) - family is out a total of $17,250 (21.6% of their before tax income). 2 of the 3 people have decent claims and they are out $25,600 (about a third of their BEFORE tax income).

quite "affordable", huh?

 

[cstu]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

"Affordable Care Act"?

Based on this calculator, my insurance will now go up $600 a month (Silver Plan).

So basically, we were lied to. Instead, it's costing much, much more for lower quality health care (when you can actually get in to see a doctor, that is).

The plan is good for families making about $50k or less but it looks like I can buy my health care privately for less.

That is only the premium, you did not add the deductibles and the 10K maximum you might have to pay ON TOP of the premium AND the deductibles. No family making 50K could afford the Silver plan unless they are willing to pay over 20% of their income even before income and state taxes are paid.This plan will ensure fewer people have medical coverage because it will not be affordable to the middle class and even less to the lower end of the income scale.

Please take into consideration ALL what you will pay if you get sick, not just the high premiums.

If you don't need prescriptions then the bronze plan is the best choice, that is $200/mo. for a family of 3 making $50k. The major difference between bronze and silver is the prescription coverage - with bronze you have to meet the $5k deductible to even get any prescription coverage while the silver gets you $25 or less generics and a $500 prescription deductible for brand name drugs.

At $343 the silver plan is not cheap for the family making $50k but if need the drugs then what other choice do you have?

Plan comparisons

We forgetting the subsidies exist here?

Those prices are after the subsidy.

 

[matttyl]

From that calculator, a family of 4 making 50 grand, can get the silver plan for 280 a month. Seems like a decent deal to me.

Ran that one too, and there is something wrong with the calculator - it's not accounting for age. I ran that with a pair of 25 year olds and with a pair of 60 year olds. Same rate in the end. Might be based on a state with no age bands, but there will be very, very few of those (New York may be only one).

 

[cstu]

From that calculator, a family of 4 making 50 grand, can get the silver plan for 280 a month. Seems like a decent deal to me.

Ran that one too, and there is something wrong with the calculator - it's not accounting for age. I ran that with a pair of 25 year olds and with a pair of 60 year olds. Same rate in the end. Might be based on a state with no age bands, but there will be very, very few of those (New York may be only one).

I was also surprised that the plan costs less when you have more kids - $4750 with 0 kids, $4112 with 1 kid, $3365 with 2 kids, $2721 with 3 kids, $2190 with 4 kids, etc.

 

[matttyl]

From that calculator, a family of 4 making 50 grand, can get the silver plan for 280 a month. Seems like a decent deal to me.

Ran that one too, and there is something wrong with the calculator - it's not accounting for age. I ran that with a pair of 25 year olds and with a pair of 60 year olds. Same rate in the end. Might be based on a state with no age bands, but there will be very, very few of those (New York may be only one).

I was also surprised that the plan costs less when you have more kids - $4750 with 0 kids, $4112 with 1 kid, $3365 with 2 kids, $2721 with 3 kids, $2190 with 4 kids, etc.

Not surprising at all. Subsidies amounts are based on % of poverty line, which is dependant on family size. For instance $70k for a husband and wife is 451% of federal poverty level (so no subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and one kid is only 358% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and 2 kids is only 297% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a larger subsidy). Same situation with 6 kids - only 177% of federal poverty level.

Pays to have more kids, huh?

 

[Sand]

Here's some fun ones -

Married couple making $62,500 per year total. He's a 33 year old tobacco user, she's 29 and non-smoker. No kids.

$8,801 per year for Silver coverage for the pair - over 14% of their BEFORE tax combined income - and still has a $2k per person deductible for medical, a $500 ded. for brand name drugs, and a $12,700 out of pocket max (over 20% of their BEFORE tax combined income, which would be AFTER their premium and deductible for a total bill of over $25,500 in one year or over 40% of their BEFORE tax income)

$7,294 per year for Bronze coverage for the pair - still 11.7% of their BEFORE tax combined income - but now a $5k per person deductible for medical/Rx and a $12,700 out of pocket max for a grand total of right at $30k total out of pocket for the year or 48% of their BEFORE tax income

Now bump the combined income to $80k, and they have a kid and now he won't be a smoker.

Over $8,900 premium per year for the Silver plan - over 11% of their before tax income. $2k per person deductible, $12,700 out of pocket max - so if just one person of the 3 has a decent size claim (lets say the kid breaks his arm playing) - family is out a total of $17,250 (21.6% of their before tax income). 2 of the 3 people have decent claims and they are out $25,600 (about a third of their BEFORE tax income).

quite "affordable", huh?

Curious here - where does the extra out of pocket come from after the deductible is met?

 

[tommyGunZ]

From that calculator, a family of 4 making 50 grand, can get the silver plan for 280 a month. Seems like a decent deal to me.

Ran that one too, and there is something wrong with the calculator - it's not accounting for age. I ran that with a pair of 25 year olds and with a pair of 60 year olds. Same rate in the end. Might be based on a state with no age bands, but there will be very, very few of those (New York may be only one).

I was also surprised that the plan costs less when you have more kids - $4750 with 0 kids, $4112 with 1 kid, $3365 with 2 kids, $2721 with 3 kids, $2190 with 4 kids, etc.

Not surprising at all. Subsidies amounts are based on % of poverty line, which is dependant on family size. For instance $70k for a husband and wife is 451% of federal poverty level (so no subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and one kid is only 358% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and 2 kids is only 297% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a larger subsidy). Same situation with 6 kids - only 177% of federal poverty level.

Pays to have more kids, huh?

Strong analysis here.

 

[MaxThreshold]

From that calculator, a family of 4 making 50 grand, can get the silver plan for 280 a month. Seems like a decent deal to me.

Ran that one too, and there is something wrong with the calculator - it's not accounting for age. I ran that with a pair of 25 year olds and with a pair of 60 year olds. Same rate in the end. Might be based on a state with no age bands, but there will be very, very few of those (New York may be only one).

I was also surprised that the plan costs less when you have more kids - $4750 with 0 kids, $4112 with 1 kid, $3365 with 2 kids, $2721 with 3 kids, $2190 with 4 kids, etc.

Not surprising at all. Subsidies amounts are based on % of poverty line, which is dependant on family size. For instance $70k for a husband and wife is 451% of federal poverty level (so no subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and one kid is only 358% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and 2 kids is only 297% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a larger subsidy). Same situation with 6 kids - only 177% of federal poverty level.

Pays to have more kids, huh?

Strong analysis here.

Gaff it off all you want - we know you're one of the liberals most dedicated kool aid drinkers despite all evidence to the contrary.

Mattyl really has made a very strong argument against this offensive monstrosity of a bill. All your meek attempts at mocking and posting anything of substance to back up this garbage law only underscores Mattyl's argument even more.

 

[drummer]

From that calculator, a family of 4 making 50 grand, can get the silver plan for 280 a month. Seems like a decent deal to me.

Ran that one too, and there is something wrong with the calculator - it's not accounting for age. I ran that with a pair of 25 year olds and with a pair of 60 year olds. Same rate in the end. Might be based on a state with no age bands, but there will be very, very few of those (New York may be only one).

I was also surprised that the plan costs less when you have more kids - $4750 with 0 kids, $4112 with 1 kid, $3365 with 2 kids, $2721 with 3 kids, $2190 with 4 kids, etc.

Not surprising at all. Subsidies amounts are based on % of poverty line, which is dependant on family size. For instance $70k for a husband and wife is 451% of federal poverty level (so no subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and one kid is only 358% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a subsidy). That same $70k for a husband, wife, and 2 kids is only 297% of federal poverty level (so you qualify for a larger subsidy). Same situation with 6 kids - only 177% of federal poverty level.

Pays to have more kids, huh?

Strong analysis here.

Gaff it off all you want - we know you're one of the liberals most dedicated kool aid drinkers despite all evidence to the contrary.

Mattyl really has made a very strong argument against this offensive monstrosity of a bill. All your meek attempts at mocking and posting anything of substance to back up this garbage law only underscores Mattyl's argument even more.

screeeeeeeeechhhhhhhhhh

 

[the moops]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

 

[MaxThreshold]

screeeeeeeeechhhhhhhhhh

 

[drummer]

screeeeeeeeechhhhhhhhhh

Edited by MaxThreshold, Today, 09:44 AM.

 

[greenroom]

Here's some fun ones -

Married couple making $62,500 per year total. He's a 33 year old tobacco user, she's 29 and non-smoker. No kids.

$8,801 per year for Silver coverage for the pair - over 14% of their BEFORE tax combined income - and still has a $2k per person deductible for medical, a $500 ded. for brand name drugs, and a $12,700 out of pocket max (over 20% of their BEFORE tax combined income, which would be AFTER their premium and deductible for a total bill of over $25,500 in one year or over 40% of their BEFORE tax income)

$7,294 per year for Bronze coverage for the pair - still 11.7% of their BEFORE tax combined income - but now a $5k per person deductible for medical/Rx and a $12,700 out of pocket max for a grand total of right at $30k total out of pocket for the year or 48% of their BEFORE tax income

Now bump the combined income to $80k, and they have a kid and now he won't be a smoker.

Over $8,900 premium per year for the Silver plan - over 11% of their before tax income. $2k per person deductible, $12,700 out of pocket max - so if just one person of the 3 has a decent size claim (lets say the kid breaks his arm playing) - family is out a total of $17,250 (21.6% of their before tax income). 2 of the 3 people have decent claims and they are out $25,600 (about a third of their BEFORE tax income).

quite "affordable", huh?

Just think if they did not have coverage.. How much are they out.. or more to the point how much are you out since they do not pay the bills and the taxpayer has to pay for it. Since you cannot be turned down for medical care.

 

[matttyl]

Here's some fun ones -

Married couple making $62,500 per year total. He's a 33 year old tobacco user, she's 29 and non-smoker. No kids.

$8,801 per year for Silver coverage for the pair - over 14% of their BEFORE tax combined income - and still has a $2k per person deductible for medical, a $500 ded. for brand name drugs, and a $12,700 out of pocket max (over 20% of their BEFORE tax combined income, which would be AFTER their premium and deductible for a total bill of over $25,500 in one year or over 40% of their BEFORE tax income)

$7,294 per year for Bronze coverage for the pair - still 11.7% of their BEFORE tax combined income - but now a $5k per person deductible for medical/Rx and a $12,700 out of pocket max for a grand total of right at $30k total out of pocket for the year or 48% of their BEFORE tax income

Now bump the combined income to $80k, and they have a kid and now he won't be a smoker.

Over $8,900 premium per year for the Silver plan - over 11% of their before tax income. $2k per person deductible, $12,700 out of pocket max - so if just one person of the 3 has a decent size claim (lets say the kid breaks his arm playing) - family is out a total of $17,250 (21.6% of their before tax income). 2 of the 3 people have decent claims and they are out $25,600 (about a third of their BEFORE tax income).

quite "affordable", huh?

Curious here - where does the extra out of pocket come from after the deductible is met?

Plan details still coming out - but most will likely be from both in-patient and out-patient procedures (you'll likely have a 20% or 30% coinsurance or something similar for those servcies). Also waiting to see if Dr. and Rx copays wold count toward deductible and/or the out of pocket max. If not, these could get really, really expensive fast.

 

[matttyl]

Here's some fun ones -

Married couple making $62,500 per year total. He's a 33 year old tobacco user, she's 29 and non-smoker. No kids.

$8,801 per year for Silver coverage for the pair - over 14% of their BEFORE tax combined income - and still has a $2k per person deductible for medical, a $500 ded. for brand name drugs, and a $12,700 out of pocket max (over 20% of their BEFORE tax combined income, which would be AFTER their premium and deductible for a total bill of over $25,500 in one year or over 40% of their BEFORE tax income)

$7,294 per year for Bronze coverage for the pair - still 11.7% of their BEFORE tax combined income - but now a $5k per person deductible for medical/Rx and a $12,700 out of pocket max for a grand total of right at $30k total out of pocket for the year or 48% of their BEFORE tax income

Now bump the combined income to $80k, and they have a kid and now he won't be a smoker.

Over $8,900 premium per year for the Silver plan - over 11% of their before tax income. $2k per person deductible, $12,700 out of pocket max - so if just one person of the 3 has a decent size claim (lets say the kid breaks his arm playing) - family is out a total of $17,250 (21.6% of their before tax income). 2 of the 3 people have decent claims and they are out $25,600 (about a third of their BEFORE tax income).

quite "affordable", huh?

Just think if they did not have coverage.. How much are they out.. or more to the point how much are you out since they do not pay the bills and the taxpayer has to pay for it. Since you cannot be turned down for medical care.

Sounds just like what all the Dems are saying right now - "the cost shouldn't matter, since they are now covered." So as long as the premium+deductible+out of pocket is less than the potential worst case scenario this is a good deal for all?!

What would the first couple be out if they didn't have the coverage and nothing happened? Most people in a given year don't have claims that excede their premiums after all, that's how this stuff works. In that case, the couple would actually have pocketed $8,800 and had a "tax/penalty" of $625 (if the feds could collect it) - so they are ahead $8,175 to pay for anything that comes up (technically they'd have $10,175 to pay for anything as they wouldn't have any deductible). So putting everything together, the majority of people in the first situation would actually be up over $10k to not accept any coverage.

Just think about how much they would be out right now if they already had coverage that would cover more of this with a lower out of pocket max for less monthly premium.....

 

[Joe T]

Mattyl owning this thread.

 

[humpback]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Add it to the list of other smart financial moves many people make.

 

[matttyl]

Mattyl owning this thread.

Thank you for your kind words. Obamacare is going to be owning us all soon.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Mattyl owning this thread.

Thank you for your kind words. Obamacare is going to be owning us all soon.

You've really been spot on in this thread. Keep up the good work!

 

[tommyGunZ]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

 

[drummer]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

 

[matttyl]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

My "analysis" was simply saying that the exact same income level could range anywhere from no subsidy to a large one depending on how many members are in the family. It's a fact that the more children are in the family, the lower the overall cost for the family. You can not dispute that.

I'm not saying that having more kids would be a good financial move by any means, just saying that your insurance itself will be cheaper.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

My "analysis" was simply saying that the exact same income level could range anywhere from no subsidy to a large one depending on how many members are in the family. It's a fact that the more children are in the family, the lower the overall cost for the family. You can not dispute that.I'm not saying that having more kids would be a good financial move by any means, just saying that your insurance itself will be cheaper.

Your exact words were: "pays to have more kids", insinuating that Obamacare incentivizes folks to have more kids, mimicking the old conservative welfare meme.

 

[matttyl]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Thank you, Drummer. I'm not saying I have the answers. I don't. I'm just saying I don't think ObamaCare is any better than what we already have, honestly. It's just the only other "alternative" being brought to the table right now. There are some parts of it that I think are needed and may, if implemented properly, will have great results. There are other parts that I don't think make any sense at all.

People say that you can not be charged more for any pre-existing condition. This is not true. You will likely pay up to 50% more if you use tobacco (AFAIK weed is included in that). Isn't that a pre-existing condition?! So if it's not fair to charge more for a pre-ex condition, why is that fair? So lets do away with that so that non-smokers will now again pay an additional 10-20% more so that all the smokers won't have that 50% extra? Well that's not fair to all the non-smokers, right?

So if we can "underwrite" for that, why can't we for illicit drug use? What about for the biggest one of all (pun intended), obesity?! Isn't that for the most part due to personal choices? What about high blood pressure? Where do we draw the line? Over 50% of all medical claims in this country are due to medical conditions from personal choices.

We need to continue with a system where it "pays" to be healthy, where people have a direct incentive to their pocketbook. I work in the insurance industry, and you'd be amazed at how many people stop smoking or lose weight to get a better rate on their life insurance policies. We can not take that away. My wife's employer has a "step counter" program tied in with their group insurance. If you reach so many steps per week, and your BMI is under a certain mark, you have a direct 20-40% reduction on your employer insurance cost. You'd be amazed at how quickly the total weight was lost in tis 200+ employee group (well over 1,000 total pounds in about a year now).

People need incentive. There is none with this plan - with the possible lone exceptions of having more children or making less money (when looking at just the insurance cost in a pure financial sense).

 

[tommyGunZ]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Well, he's ignoring analysis that has been done by non partisan experts who are considered the gold standard at this stuff in favor of his back of the envelope guesstimates. Resident FFA tea party clowns eat it up, but those of us who actually value data and expertise generally tend to find the CBO a bit more credible.

 

[matttyl]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

My "analysis" was simply saying that the exact same income level could range anywhere from no subsidy to a large one depending on how many members are in the family. It's a fact that the more children are in the family, the lower the overall cost for the family. You can not dispute that.I'm not saying that having more kids would be a good financial move by any means, just saying that your insurance itself will be cheaper.

Your exact words were: "pays to have more kids", insinuating that Obamacare incentivizes folks to have more kids, mimicking the old conservative welfare meme.

Is it not a lower total insurance cost to the consumer to have 4 kids than to have 1 kid when total family income is $20-90k? Yes, it is. So when looking only at the family insurance costs, yes it pays to have more kids.

Further, since there is a max "family" out of pocket, it yet again pays to have more people on one plan. I see it all the time where parents will now keep their 21-26 year old kids on their family plans as long as possible so they can have 3-5 people chipping away at a family deductible or family out of pocket rather than to subect the parents to one set and each kid to one of their own.

 

[matttyl]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Well, he's ignoring analysis that has been done by non partisan experts who are considered the gold standard at this stuff in favor of his back of the envelope guesstimates. Resident FFA tea party clowns eat it up, but those of us who actually value data and expertise generally tend to find the CBO a bit more credible.

Numbers came directly from websites posted here. medicoverage.com and the kaiser family foundation website (which I believe you've quoted many times yourself).

Further, the CBO analysis you are referring to is already outdated with the large employer mandate being delayed. Direct quote from recent article:

"CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation] have not yet completed an analysis of the impact that the administration’s July 2, 2013, announcement and other recently issued final rules will have on spending and revenues under current law,” the CBO announcement said. “That analysis will be released soon.”

 

[drummer]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Well, he's ignoring analysis that has been done by non partisan experts who are considered the gold standard at this stuff in favor of his back of the envelope guesstimates. Resident FFA tea party clowns eat it up, but those of us who actually value data and expertise generally tend to find the CBO a bit more credible.

Data can be weighed in favor either way. Government data tends to shake out different from real world data. It's just where you pick your data points.

 

[drummer]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Thank you, Drummer. I'm not saying I have the answers. I don't. I'm just saying I don't think ObamaCare is any better than what we already have, honestly. It's just the only other "alternative" being brought to the table right now. There are some parts of it that I think are needed and may, if implemented properly, will have great results. There are other parts that I don't think make any sense at all.

People say that you can not be charged more for any pre-existing condition. This is not true. You will likely pay up to 50% more if you use tobacco (AFAIK weed is included in that). Isn't that a pre-existing condition?! So if it's not fair to charge more for a pre-ex condition, why is that fair? So lets do away with that so that non-smokers will now again pay an additional 10-20% more so that all the smokers won't have that 50% extra? Well that's not fair to all the non-smokers, right?

So if we can "underwrite" for that, why can't we for illicit drug use? What about for the biggest one of all (pun intended), obesity?! Isn't that for the most part due to personal choices? What about high blood pressure? Where do we draw the line? Over 50% of all medical claims in this country are due to medical conditions from personal choices.

We need to continue with a system where it "pays" to be healthy, where people have a direct incentive to their pocketbook. I work in the insurance industry, and you'd be amazed at how many people stop smoking or lose weight to get a better rate on their life insurance policies. We can not take that away. My wife's employer has a "step counter" program tied in with their group insurance. If you reach so many steps per week, and your BMI is under a certain mark, you have a direct 20-40% reduction on your employer insurance cost. You'd be amazed at how quickly the total weight was lost in tis 200+ employee group (well over 1,000 total pounds in about a year now).

People need incentive. There is none with this plan - with the possible lone exceptions of having more children or making less money (when looking at just the insurance cost in a pure financial sense).

I agree that personal responsibility should be rewarded in the marketplace, if that's what you're saying. Teenagers with keys to a car has a greater risk to everybody, and safer driving habits should be rewarded with lower premiums.

To me, health care reform should tackle the actual inflation within the health care industry. If the effect is to not bring that inflation down, rather keep that inflation into high gear, then there will be more cause to bring out more reforms in legislation.

What's odd to me in these discussions here is that from what I've seen with insurance providers working their conferences, they like Obamacare because it means more policies for they to sell.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Well, he's ignoring analysis that has been done by non partisan experts who are considered the gold standard at this stuff in favor of his back of the envelope guesstimates. Resident FFA tea party clowns eat it up, but those of us who actually value data and expertise generally tend to find the CBO a bit more credible.

Numbers came directly from websites posted here. medicoverage.com and the kaiser family foundation website (which I believe you've quoted many times yourself).

Further, the CBO analysis you are referring to is already outdated with the large employer mandate being delayed. Direct quote from recent article:

"CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation] have not yet completed an analysis of the impact that the administration’s July 2, 2013, announcement and other recently issued final rules will have on spending and revenues under current law,” the CBO announcement said. “That analysis will be released soon.”

That's gonna' hurt!

Once again, you're owning like it's nobody's business but yours.

 

[humpback]

I supported it, but IMO Obamacare was never about reducing costs. It was a step towards single payer, which is the ultimate goal. It has

An honest discussion would never have got Obamacare passed.

All politicians are liars, you just support the liar you think has the best idea.

Gunz, listen to this guy. He's on your side, but he's able to be honest about it, unlike yourself.

 

[matttyl]

From phone, sorry....

What's odd to me in these discussions here is that from what I've seen with insurance providers working their conferences, they like Obamacare because it means more policies for they to sell.

Actually quite a few carriers have released the rates they would need to charge, only to have them rejected by the states.....so they drop out totally (see Aetna).

Carriers are scared to death about what's coming. They only have the ability to make up to 20% of premiums collected (and totally run their company off of it), its law; but they have no bottom end protection if they don't price it high enough and they lose their shirts.

 

[Sand]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Thank you, Drummer. I'm not saying I have the answers. I don't. I'm just saying I don't think ObamaCare is any better than what we already have, honestly. It's just the only other "alternative" being brought to the table right now. There are some parts of it that I think are needed and may, if implemented properly, will have great results. There are other parts that I don't think make any sense at all.

People say that you can not be charged more for any pre-existing condition. This is not true. You will likely pay up to 50% more if you use tobacco (AFAIK weed is included in that). Isn't that a pre-existing condition?! So if it's not fair to charge more for a pre-ex condition, why is that fair? So lets do away with that so that non-smokers will now again pay an additional 10-20% more so that all the smokers won't have that 50% extra? Well that's not fair to all the non-smokers, right?

So if we can "underwrite" for that, why can't we for illicit drug use? What about for the biggest one of all (pun intended), obesity?! Isn't that for the most part due to personal choices? What about high blood pressure? Where do we draw the line? Over 50% of all medical claims in this country are due to medical conditions from personal choices.

We need to continue with a system where it "pays" to be healthy, where people have a direct incentive to their pocketbook. I work in the insurance industry, and you'd be amazed at how many people stop smoking or lose weight to get a better rate on their life insurance policies. We can not take that away. My wife's employer has a "step counter" program tied in with their group insurance. If you reach so many steps per week, and your BMI is under a certain mark, you have a direct 20-40% reduction on your employer insurance cost. You'd be amazed at how quickly the total weight was lost in tis 200+ employee group (well over 1,000 total pounds in about a year now).

People need incentive. There is none with this plan - with the possible lone exceptions of having more children or making less money (when looking at just the insurance cost in a pure financial sense).

I agree that personal responsibility should be rewarded in the marketplace, if that's what you're saying. Teenagers with keys to a car has a greater risk to everybody, and safer driving habits should be rewarded with lower premiums.

To me, health care reform should tackle the actual inflation within the health care industry. If the effect is to not bring that inflation down, rather keep that inflation into high gear, then there will be more cause to bring out more reforms in legislation.

What's odd to me in these discussions here is that from what I've seen with insurance providers working their conferences, they like Obamacare because it means more policies for they to sell.

1. Government is doing its best to eschew personal responsibility. We'd be better off with mandatory PSAs with catastrophic coverage - something that incentivizes good personal choices. The ACA does the exact opposite.

2. Reducing cost inflation ties right in with #1. While there are many factors (ACA not tackling tort reform, AMA restricting med students, etc., etc.) there are a lot of actual health factors that roll into it - the US is #1 in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of others. We cost a lot to treat because we have excellent care combined with horribly inactive, unhealthy patients.

 

[drummer]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Thank you, Drummer. I'm not saying I have the answers. I don't. I'm just saying I don't think ObamaCare is any better than what we already have, honestly. It's just the only other "alternative" being brought to the table right now. There are some parts of it that I think are needed and may, if implemented properly, will have great results. There are other parts that I don't think make any sense at all.

People say that you can not be charged more for any pre-existing condition. This is not true. You will likely pay up to 50% more if you use tobacco (AFAIK weed is included in that). Isn't that a pre-existing condition?! So if it's not fair to charge more for a pre-ex condition, why is that fair? So lets do away with that so that non-smokers will now again pay an additional 10-20% more so that all the smokers won't have that 50% extra? Well that's not fair to all the non-smokers, right?

So if we can "underwrite" for that, why can't we for illicit drug use? What about for the biggest one of all (pun intended), obesity?! Isn't that for the most part due to personal choices? What about high blood pressure? Where do we draw the line? Over 50% of all medical claims in this country are due to medical conditions from personal choices.

We need to continue with a system where it "pays" to be healthy, where people have a direct incentive to their pocketbook. I work in the insurance industry, and you'd be amazed at how many people stop smoking or lose weight to get a better rate on their life insurance policies. We can not take that away. My wife's employer has a "step counter" program tied in with their group insurance. If you reach so many steps per week, and your BMI is under a certain mark, you have a direct 20-40% reduction on your employer insurance cost. You'd be amazed at how quickly the total weight was lost in tis 200+ employee group (well over 1,000 total pounds in about a year now).

People need incentive. There is none with this plan - with the possible lone exceptions of having more children or making less money (when looking at just the insurance cost in a pure financial sense).

I agree that personal responsibility should be rewarded in the marketplace, if that's what you're saying. Teenagers with keys to a car has a greater risk to everybody, and safer driving habits should be rewarded with lower premiums.

To me, health care reform should tackle the actual inflation within the health care industry. If the effect is to not bring that inflation down, rather keep that inflation into high gear, then there will be more cause to bring out more reforms in legislation.

What's odd to me in these discussions here is that from what I've seen with insurance providers working their conferences, they like Obamacare because it means more policies for they to sell.

1. Government is doing its best to eschew personal responsibility. We'd be better off with mandatory PSAs with catastrophic coverage - something that incentivizes good personal choices. The ACA does the exact opposite.

2. Reducing cost inflation ties right in with #1. While there are many factors (ACA not tackling tort reform, AMA restricting med students, etc., etc.) there are a lot of actual health factors that roll into it - the US is #1 in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of others. We cost a lot to treat because we have excellent care combined with horribly inactive, unhealthy patients.

What are the outlying factors that prevent people from pursuing proper self maintenance? The food industry? The physical and social environment? Does the Government need to change the outlying factors first to get true reform? That's even more Government than we want. One could argue "the Free Market", but is the marketplace part of that problem?

I dunno if getting people more disciplined in self maintenance would offset health care inflation. If more people are added into the health care system and causes even more inflation, then the problem is more systemic within the industry itself.

 

[Sand]

Having more kids to save 600 bucks a year on insurance premiums seems like a smart financial move

Don't dispute mattyl's analysis. It deep stuff.

In fairness, at least he is bringing in some analysis. It's up to whoever to counter it with more analysis.

Thank you, Drummer. I'm not saying I have the answers. I don't. I'm just saying I don't think ObamaCare is any better than what we already have, honestly. It's just the only other "alternative" being brought to the table right now. There are some parts of it that I think are needed and may, if implemented properly, will have great results. There are other parts that I don't think make any sense at all.

People say that you can not be charged more for any pre-existing condition. This is not true. You will likely pay up to 50% more if you use tobacco (AFAIK weed is included in that). Isn't that a pre-existing condition?! So if it's not fair to charge more for a pre-ex condition, why is that fair? So lets do away with that so that non-smokers will now again pay an additional 10-20% more so that all the smokers won't have that 50% extra? Well that's not fair to all the non-smokers, right?

So if we can "underwrite" for that, why can't we for illicit drug use? What about for the biggest one of all (pun intended), obesity?! Isn't that for the most part due to personal choices? What about high blood pressure? Where do we draw the line? Over 50% of all medical claims in this country are due to medical conditions from personal choices.

We need to continue with a system where it "pays" to be healthy, where people have a direct incentive to their pocketbook. I work in the insurance industry, and you'd be amazed at how many people stop smoking or lose weight to get a better rate on their life insurance policies. We can not take that away. My wife's employer has a "step counter" program tied in with their group insurance. If you reach so many steps per week, and your BMI is under a certain mark, you have a direct 20-40% reduction on your employer insurance cost. You'd be amazed at how quickly the total weight was lost in tis 200+ employee group (well over 1,000 total pounds in about a year now).

People need incentive. There is none with this plan - with the possible lone exceptions of having more children or making less money (when looking at just the insurance cost in a pure financial sense).

I agree that personal responsibility should be rewarded in the marketplace, if that's what you're saying. Teenagers with keys to a car has a greater risk to everybody, and safer driving habits should be rewarded with lower premiums.

To me, health care reform should tackle the actual inflation within the health care industry. If the effect is to not bring that inflation down, rather keep that inflation into high gear, then there will be more cause to bring out more reforms in legislation.

What's odd to me in these discussions here is that from what I've seen with insurance providers working their conferences, they like Obamacare because it means more policies for they to sell.

1. Government is doing its best to eschew personal responsibility. We'd be better off with mandatory PSAs with catastrophic coverage - something that incentivizes good personal choices. The ACA does the exact opposite.

2. Reducing cost inflation ties right in with #1. While there are many factors (ACA not tackling tort reform, AMA restricting med students, etc., etc.) there are a lot of actual health factors that roll into it - the US is #1 in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of others. We cost a lot to treat because we have excellent care combined with horribly inactive, unhealthy patients.

What are the outlying factors that prevent people from pursuing proper self maintenance? The food industry? The physical and social environment? Does the Government need to change the outlying factors first to get true reform? That's even more Government than we want. One could argue "the Free Market", but is the marketplace part of that problem?

I dunno if getting people more disciplined in self maintenance would offset health care inflation. If more people are added into the health care system and causes even more inflation, then the problem is more systemic within the industry itself.

Allow for rates to be set by body fat %. As has been said, hit consumers in their pocketbooks.

 

[matttyl]

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

 

[matttyl]

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

 

[Dr Oadi]

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

No

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

Yes

 

[greenroom]

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

I am sorry, but health insurance has been hitting the pocketbooks for years! Even before Obamacare came to life. I will give you this Obamacare does not address the main need and that is to look at the costs. But when did health insurance become an entitlement?

 

[tri-man 47]

I'm just saying I don't think ObamaCare is any better than what we already have, honestly.

Matttyl - As others have stated, I appreciate what you've added to the discussion. Concerning the above, I would say that Obamacare IS better in one, key sense ...people can obtain health coverage. That's a good thing. However, I strongly disagree with the approach taken (having the gov't managing all this instead of leaving it to the marketplace), and I am bothered by the way it was sold as "affordable" when, as you have demontrated above, it really is not and, logically, never really could be. The next few months will be very interesting as the exchanges supposedly open for business and individuals decide whether to buy coverage or pay the modest penalties. (And how can they determine if individuals have employer coverage when employers are exempt next year?)

Carry on.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

Yeah, it's crushing us. That's why health care spending rose only 1.1% in the year ending May 2013, the slowest rate of growth in 49 years.

But don't let that get in the way of the OMG OBAMACARE BENGHAZZZZZZIIIII IRSSSSS! scary narrative.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

I am sorry, but health insurance has been hitting the pocketbooks for years! Even before Obamacare came to life. I will give you this Obamacare does not address the main need and that is to look at the costs. But when did health insurance become an entitlement?

There are several cost control measures in the ACA. They rarely get talked about, and are totally ignored by folks wanting to bash GOVT CONTROLLED OBAMACARE!!!, but they are there.

 

[humpback]

Well, he's ignoring analysis that has been done by non partisan experts who are considered the gold standard at this stuff in favor of his back of the envelope guesstimates. Resident FFA tea party clowns eat it up, but those of us who actually value data and expertise generally tend to find the CBO a bit more credible.

You generally tend to find anything that fits your narrative a bit more credible and ignore anything that questions it. A hack of the highest order.

 

[Sand]

Isn't Obamacare hitting us all in the pocketbook?

I am sorry, but health insurance has been hitting the pocketbooks for years! Even before Obamacare came to life. I will give you this Obamacare does not address the main need and that is to look at the costs. But when did health insurance become an entitlement?

There are several cost control measures in the ACA. They rarely get talked about, and are totally ignored by folks wanting to bash GOVT CONTROLLED OBAMACARE!!!, but they are there.

That's true, there are. However, every piece of data coming out about the ACA notes that this or that is more expensive than predicted. Whatever has been put in there to control costs evidently isn't terribly effective, at least so far.