Report your experience with getting insurance via ACA (1 Viewer)

[Ballstein]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

http://www.ehealth.com/

The numbers don't lie.

 

[3C's]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

 

[Foosball God]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

http://www.ehealth.com/

The numbers don't lie.

I'm not sure that site is showing all Issuers. Not saying it isn't a good reference or indicative of prices.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

 

[datonn]

My wife and I ran the numbers, and instead of ~$1,300/month (family of four, children ages 11 and 7) with a $6,500 deductible, no dental, and no preventative, we're looking at ~$900/month with a $4,000 deductible, dental for the kids, and full preventative care. We live in Minnesota.

I know that some folks will pay (a lot) more for health care coverage. But my wife and I? Since we always max out our deductible every year, we'll save $7,300/year as a result of ACA. $400/month x 12 months for premiums, and $2,500 less for a deductible.

FWIW.

Small business owner?

Also I have to say this smells fishy...max out your deductible every year? People don't usually max out their deductible yearly in their 30s and 40s, assuming that is where you all are age range. Is there a history of illness here?

This is far from the norm. If people were maxing out their deductibles in your age range every year, the system would break with all the doctor appointments scheduled which brings up more points we don't even discuss in here.

You gotta be in the 1% of 1% maxing out that deductible.

$1300x12= $14k+? Add another $6.5k on top so you all are spending $20,000 a year on health insurance and health costs? Plus you made it sound like it was only catastrophic, why would you even carry the insurance? You can book most doctor appointments outside of major cities for $150 or less per session. It just doesn't add up my friend.

Yes, small business owner.

And while my wife, daughters, and I don't have any ongoing, chronic illnesses, something has seemed to always happen every year where we've incurred thousands in expenses. My wife needing abdominal surgery. Then me needing abdominal surgery. Our youngest needing surgery (ENT problems). Me needing to head to Mayo Clinic for some specialized tests related to post-concussion issues. Et al. $6,000 doesn't go very far when you're exposing half your family to the "germ factories" that are K-12 schools. And then they're exposing the other half of the family to what they've been exposed to.

And I'm not sure why you think I was making things sound like we only had "catastrophic" coverage. IMHO, that would be assinine to do as a parent of young children. Basically, playing Russian Roulette with your finances. There might have been one year in there (over the past 11, since we've been parents) where we didn't meet our deductible. But part of the story here too is that BlueCross BlueShield has been increasing our premiums by 3-4 times the pace of inflation annually... *AND* increasing the amount of our deductible we are responsible to pay (started out around $2,500 back in the day). We paid higher premiums to have lower deductibles when we first signed up, but now we don't even have the low deductibles anymore. And for my wife's 45th birthday, BCBS sent my wife a "present" of an additional $66/month in premium costs for only her...after already increasing our rates by ~8 percent from the previous year. Basically, rape.

For what it's worth. I'm not lying. I'm not distorting numbers. My wife and I will save about $400/month in premiums, with a $2,500/year lower deductible. A deductible that has a max limit of $2,000 for any individual in our family too...versus lumping the four of us together at a $6,500 cap (meaning that if any of the four of us needs hospitalization or surgery, we will only need to pay a max of $2,000 for the procedure, versus $6,500). Small business owners have been taking it in the ### for YEARS related to health insurance. No options for being in a larger "pool," and no employer paying for at least a portion of those bennies. So the ACA might actually right that wrong.

 

[datonn]

My wife and I ran the numbers, and instead of ~$1,300/month (family of four, children ages 11 and 7) with a $6,500 deductible, no dental, and no preventative, we're looking at ~$900/month with a $4,000 deductible, dental for the kids, and full preventative care. We live in Minnesota.

I know that some folks will pay (a lot) more for health care coverage. But my wife and I? Since we always max out our deductible every year, we'll save $7,300/year as a result of ACA. $400/month x 12 months for premiums, and $2,500 less for a deductible.

FWIW.

Can't be possible.

It's very possible. Another couple we are friends with in Minneapolis (self-employed, parents of one 11-year old child) will be saving over $400/month in premiums as well...for *MORE* coverage (preventative, dental for their son, etc.). Not sure what they are paying for a deductible, but they are set to see about a $4,800/year reduction in the premiums they are paying too.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

http://www.ehealth.com/

The numbers don't lie.

I'm not sure that site is showing all Issuers. Not saying it isn't a good reference or indicative of prices.

You are correct, I think it is limited in the providers it has pricing access to, but for the providers it does have access to it is pretty overwhelming that prices are going up significantly across the board (without taking into account subsidies).

 

[the moops]

Right now I pay $93.38 every 2 weeks for coverage for myself and my two sons. My wife gets her own coverage through her work.

We have open enrollment next month, so we have just recently gotten our choices for the upcoming year. If I keep my same exact plan, the price will be about 2 dollars more a pay period. However, there is a new plan being offered, called an ACO (accountable care organizations) . It reduces greatly the number of doctors in the network, but it will be almost 3 dollars cheaper per pay period. It has the same deductible ($200 for family), and same annual out of pocket limits ($4000 medical, $1500 Rx).

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

That's a pretty decent choice of plans nowadays, the moops. Particularly the low deductible portion of the plan design.

 

[Drunken Poster]

Great job everyone! Health care and rainbows for all. :confetti:

 

[cstu]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

 

[3C's]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

I had the same attitude before I read that article- but you might want to read it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Right now I pay $93.38 every 2 weeks for coverage for myself and my two sons. My wife gets her own coverage through her work.

We have open enrollment next month, so we have just recently gotten our choices for the upcoming year. If I keep my same exact plan, the price will be about 2 dollars more a pay period. However, there is a new plan being offered, called an ACO (accountable care organizations) . It reduces greatly the number of doctors in the network, but it will be almost 3 dollars cheaper per pay period. It has the same deductible ($200 for family), and same annual out of pocket limits ($4000 medical, $1500 Rx).

So are you excited about having less access to your doctors for $3 less a month? Am I missing the upside here? So if you kept your same plan you would spend about $50 more over the whole year. $200 a month=$2400/yr, and you still gotta fork out $4k on your deductible or a grand total of $6500 w/premiums, and another $1500 for Rx which is terrible.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

My wife and I ran the numbers, and instead of ~$1,300/month (family of four, children ages 11 and 7) with a $6,500 deductible, no dental, and no preventative, we're looking at ~$900/month with a $4,000 deductible, dental for the kids, and full preventative care. We live in Minnesota.

I know that some folks will pay (a lot) more for health care coverage. But my wife and I? Since we always max out our deductible every year, we'll save $7,300/year as a result of ACA. $400/month x 12 months for premiums, and $2,500 less for a deductible.

FWIW.

Can't be possible.

It's very possible. Another couple we are friends with in Minneapolis (self-employed, parents of one 11-year old child) will be saving over $400/month in premiums as well...for *MORE* coverage (preventative, dental for their son, etc.). Not sure what they are paying for a deductible, but they are set to see about a $4,800/year reduction in the premiums they are paying too.

I think you all are simply bad shoppers to boot. I usually see the kind of premiums you are talking about for things like "C.o.B.R.A."

I'll say this and I think Matty is floating around here and can weigh in on this as well. Small business owners make up 8% of the folks currently paying into the system, it was supposed to be better for them so this is not shocking but the numbers you keep rolling up are unique to your family. Most families of 4 are not having SURGERY(cutting open the body) on a regular basis, they just are not.

But it doesn't change the fact that the majority of the other 92% paying into the system already are likely to experience a rate hike.

Whatever, when this fully unrolls and we get into 2014/2015, other than the small business owner, there is gonna be a lot of bellyaching. There already is and TommyBoy had several prime examples of it in his thread.

Good luck Datonn, I hope it works out well for you(family) and I hope you realize why those premiums are going down and who is paying the difference, it's not the government i assure you.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

 

[the moops]

Right now I pay $93.38 every 2 weeks for coverage for myself and my two sons. My wife gets her own coverage through her work.

We have open enrollment next month, so we have just recently gotten our choices for the upcoming year. If I keep my same exact plan, the price will be about 2 dollars more a pay period. However, there is a new plan being offered, called an ACO (accountable care organizations) . It reduces greatly the number of doctors in the network, but it will be almost 3 dollars cheaper per pay period. It has the same deductible ($200 for family), and same annual out of pocket limits ($4000 medical, $1500 Rx).

So are you excited about having less access to your doctors for $3 less a month? Am I missing the upside here? So if you kept your same plan you would spend about $50 more over the whole year. $200 a month=$2400/yr, and you still gotta fork out $4k on your deductible or a grand total of $6500 w/premiums, and another $1500 for Rx which is terrible.

huh?

 

[the moops]

forgot to add that the copays on the new plan are 5 bucks cheaper for just about all of them

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

How is more expensive coverage going to start for millions of Americans if they can't even sign up for it in the first place? The cost of this poorly architected website has now tripled and it's going to take more than just another month or so to fix.

 

[3C's]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

So in other words, you got nothing to dispute it with other than it's from a left wing site so it's wrong. That's cool.

 

[DrJ]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

They've built no confidence that they can actually maintain this site. Even when we get it to a point in time state of "working", there's still the matter of keeping it going. This requires constant patching and testing, vigilance in maintaining security in a dynamic environment, a whole lot of technical stuff they've demonstrated no aptitude for thusfar. If my job was to build this website in the private world, my ### would be on the line right now.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

So in other words, you got nothing to dispute it with other than it's from a left wing site so it's wrong. That's cool.

You won't believe anything from FOX because they're biased, but you'll believe what you read on Salon.com? Do I have that correct?

It's wrong because they're just as biased as Fox. Probably even more so. What are you having trouble with? Why would I go to a site whose sole purpose is to promote the left wing ideology? And then use it as a legitimate, "unbiased" source when trying to prove bias of the right?

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

They've built no confidence that they can actually maintain this site. Even when we get it to a point in time state of "working", there's still the matter of keeping it going. This requires constant patching and testing, vigilance in maintaining security in a dynamic environment, a whole lot of technical stuff they've demonstrated no aptitude for thusfar. If my job was to build this website in the private world, my ### would be on the line right now.

 

[3C's]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

So in other words, you got nothing to dispute it with other than it's from a left wing site so it's wrong. That's cool.

You won't believe anything from FOX because they're biased, but you'll believe what you read on Salon.com? Do I have that correct?

It's wrong because they're just as biased as Fox. Probably even more so. What are you having trouble with? Why would I go to a site whose sole purpose is to promote the left wing ideology? And then use it as a legitimate, unbiased source when trying to prove bias of someone I don't like?

Who said I won't believe anything from Fox? This is a particular situation. Hannity and guests "reported" something. Someone else fact checked them and showed them to be full of it. Did you even read it or did you just see it was from a "left wing" site and automatically disregard it as bs?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

So in other words, you got nothing to dispute it with other than it's from a left wing site so it's wrong. That's cool.

You won't believe anything from FOX because they're biased, but you'll believe what you read on Salon.com? Do I have that correct?

It's wrong because they're just as biased as Fox. Probably even more so. What are you having trouble with? Why would I go to a site whose sole purpose is to promote the left wing ideology? And then use it as a legitimate, unbiased source when trying to prove bias of someone I don't like?

Who said I won't believe anything from Fox? This is a particular situation. Hannity and guests "reported" something. Someone else fact checked them and showed them to be full of it. Did you even read it or did you just see it was from a "left wing" site and automatically disregard it as bs?

Kind of how most lefties view FOX?

And I did read it and it's nothing more than left wing nonsense. He goes on to determine what he thinks their rate should be and tries to determine it from the website (which I'm surprised he was even able to get on) by guessing at what he thinks their situation is.

The whole article is nothing but a bunch of speculation to try and disprove the "train wreck" that Obamacare is. He does a poor job trying to twist it in a defense of Obamacare. Their are many ACTUAL stories in this thread and elsewhere showing the reality of the prices of Obamacare.

Mattyl - someone who is actually front and center on this - has been posting some good stuff in here on what Obamacare really means for the American people. You should read some of them.

 

[3C's]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

So in other words, you got nothing to dispute it with other than it's from a left wing site so it's wrong. That's cool.

You won't believe anything from FOX because they're biased, but you'll believe what you read on Salon.com? Do I have that correct?

It's wrong because they're just as biased as Fox. Probably even more so. What are you having trouble with? Why would I go to a site whose sole purpose is to promote the left wing ideology? And then use it as a legitimate, unbiased source when trying to prove bias of someone I don't like?

Who said I won't believe anything from Fox? This is a particular situation. Hannity and guests "reported" something. Someone else fact checked them and showed them to be full of it. Did you even read it or did you just see it was from a "left wing" site and automatically disregard it as bs?

Kind of how most lefties view FOX?

And I did read it and it's nothing more than left wing nonsense. He goes on to determine what he thinks their rate should be and tries to determine it from the website (which I'm surprised he was even able to get on) by guessing at what he thinks their situation is.

The whole article is nothing but a bunch of speculation to try and disprove the "train wreck" that Obamacare is. He does a poor job trying to twist it in a defense of Obamacare. Their are many ACTUAL stories in this thread and elsewhere showing the reality of the prices of Obamacare.

Mattyl - someone who is actually front and center on this - has been posting some good stuff in here on what Obamacare really means for the American people. You should read some of them.

I'm not a leftie, idiot! I'm also not a blindfold wearing ideologue either. You've shown your propensity to ignore solid thought analysis and only regurgitate whatever the latest talking point is. Why I've even bothered to respond to someone like you is beyond me. Thank you for bringing me down to your level.

 

[datonn]

My wife and I ran the numbers, and instead of ~$1,300/month (family of four, children ages 11 and 7) with a $6,500 deductible, no dental, and no preventative, we're looking at ~$900/month with a $4,000 deductible, dental for the kids, and full preventative care. We live in Minnesota.

I know that some folks will pay (a lot) more for health care coverage. But my wife and I? Since we always max out our deductible every year, we'll save $7,300/year as a result of ACA. $400/month x 12 months for premiums, and $2,500 less for a deductible.

FWIW.

Can't be possible.

It's very possible. Another couple we are friends with in Minneapolis (self-employed, parents of one 11-year old child) will be saving over $400/month in premiums as well...for *MORE* coverage (preventative, dental for their son, etc.). Not sure what they are paying for a deductible, but they are set to see about a $4,800/year reduction in the premiums they are paying too.

I think you all are simply bad shoppers to boot. I usually see the kind of premiums you are talking about for things like "C.o.B.R.A."

I'll say this and I think Matty is floating around here and can weigh in on this as well. Small business owners make up 8% of the folks currently paying into the system, it was supposed to be better for them so this is not shocking but the numbers you keep rolling up are unique to your family. Most families of 4 are not having SURGERY(cutting open the body) on a regular basis, they just are not.

But it doesn't change the fact that the majority of the other 92% paying into the system already are likely to experience a rate hike.

Whatever, when this fully unrolls and we get into 2014/2015, other than the small business owner, there is gonna be a lot of bellyaching. There already is and TommyBoy had several prime examples of it in his thread.

Good luck Datonn, I hope it works out well for you(family) and I hope you realize why those premiums are going down and who is paying the difference, it's not the government i assure you.

Truth be told, my uncle (basically served as co-"Father" along with my grandfather for me while my Dad was MIA growing up) is my insurance agent. He did the best he could for us across multiple companies and multiple plans. For a commission of basically a coupon of a free cookie or chips at Subway for his troubles. If he can't help get us the best deal? I'm not sure who could have. He's about as "red" (Conservative) as they come, and even he told me that nothing he is aware of can come anything close to touching the types of rates/coverage that are now available to us under the ACA. Which PAINS him to tell me...since he thinks the ACA will usher in all those horsemen of the impending apocalypse. But for our situation? It's a God-send. My wife even did about 6-12 months of shopping around on her/our own pre-ACA taking effect, to see if we might find a better deal than we already had (to no avail).

Other stories from families I know are popping up on Facebook where they are seeing the same thing. Less in premiums and deductibles for more coverage. A 60-year old friend of mine (single, no dependents) was sputtering about Obamacare, and how it's ruining health care...forcing BlueCross BlueShield to increase his premiums for 2014 some 30-32 percent! I asked if he had checked to see what's out there on the MNsure.org website, and what do you know...instead of paying a 30-32 percent increase in 2014, there are comparable to better plans available to him for about 8-10 percent less than he's paying now. So, let's say he's paying $1,000/month now (just for the ease of round numbers). Staying with BCBS and bemoaning the evils of "Obamacare" while paying $1,320/month in 2014? Or enrolling with a new plan through MNsure, putting political beliefs aside, and paying $920/month in 2014? For more coverage?

I might not win a Nobel Prize or be honored as a MacArthur Fellow in my lifetime. But the choice seems rather obvious to me.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

So in other words, you got nothing to dispute it with other than it's from a left wing site so it's wrong. That's cool.

You won't believe anything from FOX because they're biased, but you'll believe what you read on Salon.com? Do I have that correct?

It's wrong because they're just as biased as Fox. Probably even more so. What are you having trouble with? Why would I go to a site whose sole purpose is to promote the left wing ideology? And then use it as a legitimate, unbiased source when trying to prove bias of someone I don't like?

Who said I won't believe anything from Fox? This is a particular situation. Hannity and guests "reported" something. Someone else fact checked them and showed them to be full of it. Did you even read it or did you just see it was from a "left wing" site and automatically disregard it as bs?

Kind of how most lefties view FOX?

And I did read it and it's nothing more than left wing nonsense. He goes on to determine what he thinks their rate should be and tries to determine it from the website (which I'm surprised he was even able to get on) by guessing at what he thinks their situation is.

The whole article is nothing but a bunch of speculation to try and disprove the "train wreck" that Obamacare is. He does a poor job trying to twist it in a defense of Obamacare. Their are many ACTUAL stories in this thread and elsewhere showing the reality of the prices of Obamacare.

Mattyl - someone who is actually front and center on this - has been posting some good stuff in here on what Obamacare really means for the American people. You should read some of them.

I'm not a leftie, idiot! I'm also not a blindfold wearing ideologue either. You've shown your propensity to ignore solid thought analysis and only regurgitate whatever the latest talking point is. Why I've even bothered to respond to someone like you is beyond me. Thank you for bringing me down to your level.

Take a deep breath...

 

[Foosball God]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

How is more expensive coverage going to start for millions of Americans if they can't even sign up for it in the first place? The cost of this poorly architected website has now tripled and it's going to take more than just another month or so to fix.

That USA Today article is chock full of false information.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Right now I pay $93.38 every 2 weeks for coverage for myself and my two sons. My wife gets her own coverage through her work.

We have open enrollment next month, so we have just recently gotten our choices for the upcoming year. If I keep my same exact plan, the price will be about 2 dollars more a pay period. However, there is a new plan being offered, called an ACO (accountable care organizations) . It reduces greatly the number of doctors in the network, but it will be almost 3 dollars cheaper per pay period. It has the same deductible ($200 for family), and same annual out of pocket limits ($4000 medical, $1500 Rx).

So are you excited about having less access to your doctors for $3 less a month? Am I missing the upside here? So if you kept your same plan you would spend about $50 more over the whole year. $200 a month=$2400/yr, and you still gotta fork out $4k on your deductible or a grand total of $6500 w/premiums, and another $1500 for Rx which is terrible.

huh?

That was my thought when I read your post but I extrapolated on it.

 

[3C's]

Take a deep breath...

I'm good. Spending time with my shelter dogs always makes the day better and lets me forget the trivial crap.

 

[Statorama]

Just got back from Walmart and kind of ticked off that Obamacare doesn't force people to purchase dental insurance too

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why don't some of you post non biased GOP links

How about some GOP bias instead? http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

Wait...so you're proof of "GOP Bias" is a link to a clearly biased, hard left website?

C'mon, Man! Are you serious?

So, because it's on a left wing site it's not factual? Pretty sure the author, a former senior adviser to a Governor, son of David Stern, and a lawyer, would not put his reputation on the line by reporting falsehoods. Sorry that the truth is hard for you to swallow.

Dude..don't you see the irony here? You're trying to prove GOP bias by using DNC bias! And "the truth" you speak of is only "the truth" to you because it supports your view. Sorry if THAT "truth" is hard for YOU to swallow.

So in other words, you got nothing to dispute it with other than it's from a left wing site so it's wrong. That's cool.

You won't believe anything from FOX because they're biased, but you'll believe what you read on Salon.com? Do I have that correct?

It's wrong because they're just as biased as Fox. Probably even more so. What are you having trouble with? Why would I go to a site whose sole purpose is to promote the left wing ideology? And then use it as a legitimate, unbiased source when trying to prove bias of someone I don't like?

Who said I won't believe anything from Fox? This is a particular situation. Hannity and guests "reported" something. Someone else fact checked them and showed them to be full of it. Did you even read it or did you just see it was from a "left wing" site and automatically disregard it as bs?

Kind of how most lefties view FOX?

And I did read it and it's nothing more than left wing nonsense. He goes on to determine what he thinks their rate should be and tries to determine it from the website (which I'm surprised he was even able to get on) by guessing at what he thinks their situation is.

The whole article is nothing but a bunch of speculation to try and disprove the "train wreck" that Obamacare is. He does a poor job trying to twist it in a defense of Obamacare. Their are many ACTUAL stories in this thread and elsewhere showing the reality of the prices of Obamacare.

Mattyl - someone who is actually front and center on this - has been posting some good stuff in here on what Obamacare really means for the American people. You should read some of them.

I'm not a leftie, idiot! I'm also not a blindfold wearing ideologue either. You've shown your propensity to ignore solid thought analysis and only regurgitate whatever the latest talking point is. Why I've even bothered to respond to someone like you is beyond me. Thank you for bringing me down to your level.

Slow down and read what I posted - I didn't call YOU a lefty I said "most lefties". You're getting all bent out of shape over something I never said about you. And the fact that someone doesn't believe what someone else posts at face value doesn't make them devoid of "thought analysis". It makes them skeptical - especially when the fact that you go on about a right wing site being biased and as your evidence using an even more biased lefty site. Being skeptical can actually be pretty useful in sifting thru a lot of the BS.

But instead you want to make it personal when you get a little resistance. BTW - that IS a standard lefty trait.

 

[the moops]

Right now I pay $93.38 every 2 weeks for coverage for myself and my two sons. My wife gets her own coverage through her work.

We have open enrollment next month, so we have just recently gotten our choices for the upcoming year. If I keep my same exact plan, the price will be about 2 dollars more a pay period. However, there is a new plan being offered, called an ACO (accountable care organizations) . It reduces greatly the number of doctors in the network, but it will be almost 3 dollars cheaper per pay period. It has the same deductible ($200 for family), and same annual out of pocket limits ($4000 medical, $1500 Rx).

So are you excited about having less access to your doctors for $3 less a month? Am I missing the upside here? So if you kept your same plan you would spend about $50 more over the whole year. $200 a month=$2400/yr, and you still gotta fork out $4k on your deductible or a grand total of $6500 w/premiums, and another $1500 for Rx which is terrible.

huh?

That was my thought when I read your post but I extrapolated on it.

1) I never said I was excited about anything

2) That being said, having fewer doctors or clinics in my network is not a problem I have. I dont have a primary that I care all that much about, so if I have to switch I am fine with that.

3) Your math in this thread rivals your pizza math

 

[tom22406]

Tried again over the weekend to get back into the system and got the message the site was down again.

3 weeks in and still unable to get back in.

Maybe this week

 

[SacramentoBob]

I urge you to go to ehealth.com and look for yourself at the individual plans available today and what will be available to you next year - see the vast difference in the deductible options?

Bored so I gave this a shot.

Currently paying ~$100/month for an HDHP + HRA (pretty awesome really) with a $1,600 deductible. In my 30s, non-smoker.

For that same price I can get an HDHP + HSA with a $3,500 deductible "pre-Obamacare".

For $234/month I can get an HDHP + HSA with a $3650 deductible silver plan "post-Obamacare".

I don't qualify for a subsidy according to the website which sets the limit at $46K salary. I assume that's accurate.

I find out next week how much my coverage through my employer is going to be. All I know right now is previously we had a choice of two providers and this year we only get one. No word on cost or what plans are being offered.

Finally had a look at my coverage options and I will do my best to provide an apples to apples comparison.

Current plan through employer: $1,600 deductible (in or out of network) + $500 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$100 year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

This year (gold plan): $1500/$3000 deductible + $400 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$170/year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

This year (silver plan): $2000/$4000 deductible + $200 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$110/year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

Slightly worse coverage for 70% more money or slightly more worse coverage for the same money. Not sure how to factor in ACA preventive care since I don't know what that is and I never go to the doctor for preventive care anyway. I've been to the doctor 3x in the last 2-3 years and both were related to infections. I don't go because I have a cold.

Not sure what plan I'm going to pick. My employer coverage >>>>>> exchange coverage, that's for sure. As a side note, my employer is only offering HRA plans this year, whereas they offered HDHP + HRA, HDHP + HSA and HMO plans in the past. I think HRAs are great plans, but others may not see it that way if they are the type to go to the ER every time they get a cough.

 

[NutterButter]

I urge you to go to ehealth.com and look for yourself at the individual plans available today and what will be available to you next year - see the vast difference in the deductible options?

Bored so I gave this a shot.

Currently paying ~$100/month for an HDHP + HRA (pretty awesome really) with a $1,600 deductible. In my 30s, non-smoker.

For that same price I can get an HDHP + HSA with a $3,500 deductible "pre-Obamacare".

For $234/month I can get an HDHP + HSA with a $3650 deductible silver plan "post-Obamacare".

I don't qualify for a subsidy according to the website which sets the limit at $46K salary. I assume that's accurate.

I find out next week how much my coverage through my employer is going to be. All I know right now is previously we had a choice of two providers and this year we only get one. No word on cost or what plans are being offered.

Finally had a look at my coverage options and I will do my best to provide an apples to apples comparison.

Current plan through employer: $1,600 deductible (in or out of network) + $500 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$100 year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

This year (gold plan): $1500/$3000 deductible + $400 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$170/year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

This year (silver plan): $2000/$4000 deductible + $200 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$110/year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

Slightly worse coverage for 70% more money or slightly more worse coverage for the same money. Not sure how to factor in ACA preventive care since I don't know what that is and I never go to the doctor for preventive care anyway. I've been to the doctor 3x in the last 2-3 years and both were related to infections. I don't go because I have a cold.

Not sure what plan I'm going to pick. My employer coverage >>>>>> exchange coverage, that's for sure. As a side note, my employer is only offering HRA plans this year, whereas they offered HDHP + HRA, HDHP + HSA and HMO plans in the past. I think HRAs are great plans, but others may not see it that way if they are the type to go to the ER every time they get a cough.

I wonder if those same percentages apply for people with high existing premiums or do those people somehow have a lower increase. 70% more when you're currently paying 1k/yr isn't much to lose sleep. 70% when you're already paying 7k, now that's pretty significant.

 

[[icon]]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

They've built no confidence that they can actually maintain this site. Even when we get it to a point in time state of "working", there's still the matter of keeping it going. This requires constant patching and testing, vigilance in maintaining security in a dynamic environment, a whole lot of technical stuff they've demonstrated no aptitude for thusfar. If my job was to build this website in the private world, my ### would be on the line right now.

I can all but guarantee this site will be hacked and either brought down or have all the sensitive personal information compromised.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I urge you to go to ehealth.com and look for yourself at the individual plans available today and what will be available to you next year - see the vast difference in the deductible options?

Bored so I gave this a shot.

Currently paying ~$100/month for an HDHP + HRA (pretty awesome really) with a $1,600 deductible. In my 30s, non-smoker.

For that same price I can get an HDHP + HSA with a $3,500 deductible "pre-Obamacare".

For $234/month I can get an HDHP + HSA with a $3650 deductible silver plan "post-Obamacare".

I don't qualify for a subsidy according to the website which sets the limit at $46K salary. I assume that's accurate.

I find out next week how much my coverage through my employer is going to be. All I know right now is previously we had a choice of two providers and this year we only get one. No word on cost or what plans are being offered.

Finally had a look at my coverage options and I will do my best to provide an apples to apples comparison.

Current plan through employer: $1,600 deductible (in or out of network) + $500 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$100 year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

This year (gold plan): $1500/$3000 deductible + $400 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$170/year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

This year (silver plan): $2000/$4000 deductible + $200 yearly employer contribution to my HRA for ~$110/year. Generics 15%, brand-names 25%. No dental, no vision (my choice).

Slightly worse coverage for 70% more money or slightly more worse coverage for the same money. Not sure how to factor in ACA preventive care since I don't know what that is and I never go to the doctor for preventive care anyway. I've been to the doctor 3x in the last 2-3 years and both were related to infections. I don't go because I have a cold.

Not sure what plan I'm going to pick. My employer coverage >>>>>> exchange coverage, that's for sure. As a side note, my employer is only offering HRA plans this year, whereas they offered HDHP + HRA, HDHP + HSA and HMO plans in the past. I think HRAs are great plans, but others may not see it that way if they are the type to go to the ER every time they get a cough.

I wonder if those same percentages apply for people with high existing premiums or do those people somehow have a lower increase. 70% more when you're currently paying 1k/yr isn't much to lose sleep. 70% when you're already paying 7k, now that's pretty significant.

It depends on the person. Of course it's not a lot of money to me, I'm a FBG. The gold family plan is ~$540 this year. No idea what my family plan offerings were in previous year, but if it's a 70% increase from before, that's going to hurt.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Just checked with a co-worker and he was paying ~$410 for a family plan last year, so it's about a 25% increase.

 

[BobbyLayne]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

How is more expensive coverage going to start for millions of Americans if they can't even sign up for it in the first place? The cost of this poorly architected website has now tripled and it's going to take more than just another month or so to fix.

That USA Today article is chock full of false information.

Contractors See Weeks of Work on Health SiteSo, basically we got 55 contractors and no quarterback. They're trying to decide if anyone should be coordinating the effort. No need for that, it'll probably sort itself out.

 

[matttyl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

I had the same attitude before I read that article- but you might want to read it.

And for your coverage to start Jan 1, you need a completed and approved application by around December 15th. They've got less than 2 months......

 

[NutterButter]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html

The Huffington Post is a pretty liberal website. if their leading article of night is "Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans", you know there's something really wrong here. Read the article; it sounds to me like it's a monumental #### up.

Coverage doesn't even start until January so I'm tired of all the #####ing about the website. Attack the overall plan if you want but enough about a website that will surely be fixed in time for it to matter.

I had the same attitude before I read that article- but you might want to read it.

And for your coverage to start Jan 1, you need a completed and approved application by around December 15th. They've got less than 2 months......

I thought you don't get fined provided you have coverage by 3/15. Someone mentioned that previously in this thread.

 

[matttyl]

I thought you don't get fined provided you have coverage by 3/15. Someone mentioned that previously in this thread.

Sure you don't get fined as long as you don't go without coverage for more than 90 days.....but that means you also go without coverage for 90 days. What if you're "waiting in line" to get your Obamacare and something happens that you're now on the hook for? You going after the web designer to pay your bills?

 

[NutterButter]

I thought you don't get fined provided you have coverage by 3/15. Someone mentioned that previously in this thread.

Sure you don't get fined as long as you don't go without coverage for more than 90 days.....but that means you also go without coverage for 90 days. What if you're "waiting in line" to get your Obamacare and something happens that you're now on the hook for? You going after the web designer to pay your bills?

Aren't these people that didn't have coverage in the first place?

 

[matttyl]

I thought you don't get fined provided you have coverage by 3/15. Someone mentioned that previously in this thread.

Sure you don't get fined as long as you don't go without coverage for more than 90 days.....but that means you also go without coverage for 90 days. What if you're "waiting in line" to get your Obamacare and something happens that you're now on the hook for? You going after the web designer to pay your bills?

Aren't these people that didn't have coverage in the first place?

Could be. Maybe they are people that had individual policies that they didn't want to have renewed because the only way they were going to get a subsidy was by going through the exchange (you can not receive a subsidy going "off exchange"). Maybe it's someone with a group policy with a 1/1/14 renewal and they told their employer to not renew them as they would obtain individual coverage through the exchange (or so they thought).

 

[NutterButter]

Aren't these people that didn't have coverage in the first place?

Could be. Maybe they are people that had individual policies that they didn't want to have renewed because the only way they were going to get a subsidy was by going through the exchange (you can not receive a subsidy going "off exchange"). Maybe it's someone with a group policy with a 1/1/14 renewal and they told their employer to not renew them as they would obtain individual coverage through the exchange (or so they thought).

So if they didn't renew, wouldn't they also be without insurance until 1/1/14? Sounds like a bunch of people taking a lot of risks with their insurance.

 

[matttyl]

Aren't these people that didn't have coverage in the first place?

Could be. Maybe they are people that had individual policies that they didn't want to have renewed because the only way they were going to get a subsidy was by going through the exchange (you can not receive a subsidy going "off exchange"). Maybe it's someone with a group policy with a 1/1/14 renewal and they told their employer to not renew them as they would obtain individual coverage through the exchange (or so they thought).

So if they didn't renew, wouldn't they also be without insurance until 1/1/14? Sounds like a bunch of people taking a lot of risks with their insurance.

I mean they asked their employer not to renew them on the group for 1/1/14 (continue with coverage until then, at which point they would be covered on an individual ACA plan). As for the individual policyholder, lots of people who will receive a subsidy will actually be paying less on an ACA plan (and likely have the ability for a lower deductible) - but they only way that they can do that is enrolling on the exchange so to get the subsidy. If the exchange isn't there, they are screwed.