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

[TheIronSheik]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

Just because I believe one thing doesn't label me part of one party or another. I have many different beliefs that align with different parties. This is why I am an Independent. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I'm sorry if I don't feel like paying for other people's stuff. Where is that line drawn? What other things am I responsible for of other people? Should everyone have a car? Should everyone get access to TV? It's great that you feel one way on a certain subject. I applaud that. But it doesn't mean you're right. And winning an election doesn't make it right, either. If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Godsbrother]

If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

If receiving a million dollars is wrong I don't want to be right.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

Just because I believe one thing doesn't label me part of one party or another. I have many different beliefs that align with different parties. This is why I am an Independent. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I'm sorry if I don't feel like paying for other people's stuff. Where is that line drawn? What other things am I responsible for of other people? Should everyone have a car? Should everyone get access to TV? It's great that you feel one way on a certain subject. I applaud that. But it doesn't mean you're right. And winning an election doesn't make it right, either. If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

That's why I said it was a flippant answer. I have no idea how you voted.

But it is the answer. Because you're wrong. If there was a vote that said "should every American be given a million dollars?" I'm sure the answer would be no. And part of the reason I know this is because nobody, not even the most liberal politicians in America, have ever proposed that. And someone obviously would propose it if it were so popular. Hell, we can't even get a guaranteed national income in this country and that's a program that was endorsed by Milton Friedman.

Where does it end? The only answer is that in America it ends far sooner than almost anywhere else in the Western world. We have among the lowest tax burdens in the Western world. This is the first significant expansion in the social safety net in the last 40 years. You still think it's too much. Fine. Then win some elections. I'd also add that you should probably perform some serious research into whether this really is costing you more, but I understand that people find that hard.

 

[matttyl]

Is it just the ACA or are some people simply opposed to the greatest nation in world history providing health care to all her citizens?

We already do through Emergency Rooms is not an acceptable answer.

Along this same line, I honestly wonder what would have happened if the "mandate" was put in place 2 years ago - at the start of 2012. Everyone assumes that the ~50M or so uninsured Americans simply can not obtain or can not afford coverage. If that were the case, I'd make considerably less as an insurance agent. I come across people all the time looking to obtain insurance who haven't had it for years while absolutely nothing has prevented them from obtaining it. They are healthy enough to get underwritten and have enough money to afford the coverage, they just decided to go without it and "roll the dice".

If half of those people obtained individual underwritten policies because of a mandate in place at the time, and another 10-20% enrolled in medicare/medicaid who didn't realize that they qualified or never went through the process to sign up......would the ACA really have been needed?

 

[matttyl]

If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

If receiving a million dollars is wrong I don't want to be right.

But I think TheIronSheik is right in that how the ACA was worded to the general public was - "should everyone have health insurance regardless of their pre-ex/health situation or their income?" If you ask anyone that question worded that way, the answer would be almost unanimously "yes". If you then asked them if they were willing to pay 2x more to do it, many who would benefit from first being able to obtain coverage because of their pre-ex/health or income would still be all for it, but those of us currently with coverage may now feel differently. It's all in how you phrase the question, and how much information you give.

Should everyone have a Mini Cooper S sitting in their driveway (I choose this cause it's what I drive and I love my car). Sure! Everyone could get to and from their wonderful jobs and take their kids to soccer practice and be happy and yada-yada. Are you willing to have your taxes double or more to accommodate this? Hmm, maybe not....

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

Just because I believe one thing doesn't label me part of one party or another. I have many different beliefs that align with different parties. This is why I am an Independent. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I'm sorry if I don't feel like paying for other people's stuff. Where is that line drawn? What other things am I responsible for of other people? Should everyone have a car? Should everyone get access to TV? It's great that you feel one way on a certain subject. I applaud that. But it doesn't mean you're right. And winning an election doesn't make it right, either. If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

 

[matttyl]

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

Again, how do you know that people who are currently uninsured are that way because they can't afford it? Many, many people choose to go without coverage because they don't want to afford it, not because they can't.

 

[Chaka]

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

Again, how do you know that people who are currently uninsured are that way because they can't afford it? Many, many people choose to go without coverage because they don't want to afford it, not because they can't.

That's nice and why does that matter? Many, many people cannot afford it at all.

 

[matttyl]

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

Again, how do you know that people who are currently uninsured are that way because they can't afford it? Many, many people choose to go without coverage because they don't want to afford it, not because they can't.

That's nice and why does that matter? Many, many people cannot afford it at all.

That's fine, but lets not pretend it's all of the current ~50M uninsured Americans. I'd wager it's less than half of that, far less. And if they truly can't, isn't that what Medicaid is for?

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

Just because I believe one thing doesn't label me part of one party or another. I have many different beliefs that align with different parties. This is why I am an Independent. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I'm sorry if I don't feel like paying for other people's stuff. Where is that line drawn? What other things am I responsible for of other people? Should everyone have a car? Should everyone get access to TV? It's great that you feel one way on a certain subject. I applaud that. But it doesn't mean you're right. And winning an election doesn't make it right, either. If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

Actually, I didn't. I said where's the line. There will always be people in this world who can't afford healthcare. Can't afford food. Can't afford shelter. The world is a tough place.

There are single mothers out there who can't afford a lawyer to fight for child support they are owed. Should the whole country pay for people's lawyers? There are homeless people out there who can't afford nice clothes in order to get a job. Should we all be chipping in to buy these people clothes? There are families that live in roach infested apartments because they can't afford anything better. Should we all be taking money out of our paychecks to get them better housing?

If people want to help people in need, then great. That's a wonderful thing. But making everyone pay is not the way to go, IMO.

 

[Chaka]

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

Again, how do you know that people who are currently uninsured are that way because they can't afford it? Many, many people choose to go without coverage because they don't want to afford it, not because they can't.

That's nice and why does that matter? Many, many people cannot afford it at all.

That's fine, but lets not pretend it's all of the current ~50M uninsured Americans. I'd wager it's less than half of that, far less. And if they truly can't, isn't that what Medicaid is for?

The ~48M don't qualify for Medicaid. The ACA is essentially an expansion of Medicaid.

No one really disputes the ~48M number, your suggestion that half of those people could afford insurance is a completely unsubstantiated gut feeling with no basis in reality but let's say you are correct. That still leaves ~24M uninsured Americans.

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

Just because I believe one thing doesn't label me part of one party or another. I have many different beliefs that align with different parties. This is why I am an Independent. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I'm sorry if I don't feel like paying for other people's stuff. Where is that line drawn? What other things am I responsible for of other people? Should everyone have a car? Should everyone get access to TV? It's great that you feel one way on a certain subject. I applaud that. But it doesn't mean you're right. And winning an election doesn't make it right, either. If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

Actually, I didn't. I said where's the line. There will always be people in this world who can't afford healthcare. Can't afford food. Can't afford shelter. The world is a tough place.

There are single mothers out there who can't afford a lawyer to fight for child support they are owed. Should the whole country pay for people's lawyers? There are homeless people out there who can't afford nice clothes in order to get a job. Should we all be chipping in to buy these people clothes? There are families that live in roach infested apartments because they can't afford anything better. Should we all be taking money out of our paychecks to get them better housing?

If people want to help people in need, then great. That's a wonderful thing. But making everyone pay is not the way to go, IMO.

Actually you did and thank you for correcting that by offering comparisons that are not designed to exclusively be inflammatory.

We already try to provide food to the hungry and housing to the homeless and we could do a much better job of it too.

So you think it's okay that the most prosperous and awesome country in the history of the world has a homeless and hungry population with no access to medical care? We have tried the "charitable deeds" solution for decades and it really doesn't seem to be working.

And my point is not to support the ACA, which is without question a flawed piece of legislation, I am just curious if people are just opposed to the ACA specifically or if it is general opposition to helping our most needy citizens.

 

[Chaka]

On a related note: What is the opposition to a single payer health care system?

 

[matttyl]

The ~48M don't qualify for Medicaid. The ACA is essentially an expansion of Medicaid.

No one really disputes the ~48M number, your suggestion that half of those people could afford insurance is a completely unsubstantiated gut feeling with no basis in reality but let's say you are correct. That still leaves ~24M uninsured Americans.

Actually it isn't....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

Based on self-reported census data, in 2010, more than 49 million people in the US (more than 16% of the population) were without health insurance as defined in the questions asked. The percentage of the non-elderly population who are uninsured has been generally increasing since the year 2000.[6] Among the uninsured population, some 40 million were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 28 million worked at least part-time. About 37% of the uninsured live in households with incomes over $50,000.[3]

According to the Census Bureau, more than 40 million of the uninsured are US citizens. Another 9.7 million are non-citizens, but the Census Bureau does not distinguish in its estimate between documented and undocumented migrants.[3]It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[11] An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[12]

So nearly half, by these studies, of the uninsured can either already afford it or already qualify for public coverage. Personally I believe it's higher than that due to the very last line I cut and pasted - that in actuality only about 10% of the currently uninsured are actually uninsurable due to their health, and because basic coverage available today to people who can qualify for it medically (which apparently 90% of the uninsured can) is actually very inexpensive (just look at ehealth.com).

Again I ask, if we put in a mandate 2 years ago, I wonder what the number of uninsured in America would actually be today.

Take it one step further, even with a mandate - if prices go up 10, 20, 50, 100+% from where they are now - how many people who currently have coverage will now choose to go without (and be charged a penalty) leaving us right back to where we are now - just a different group of uninsured.

 

[matttyl]

Actually you did and thank you for correcting that by offering comparisons that are not designed to exclusively be inflammatory.

We already try to provide food to the hungry and housing to the homeless and we could do a much better job of it too.

So you think it's okay that the most prosperous and awesome country in the history of the world has a homeless and hungry population with no access to medical care? We have tried the "charitable deeds" solution for decades and it really doesn't seem to be working.

And my point is not to support the ACA, which is without question a flawed piece of legislation, I am just curious if people are just opposed to the ACA specifically or if it is general opposition to helping our most needy citizens.

Access to health insurance does not mean access to medical care. People have access to medical care currently.

 

[matttyl]

On a related note: What is the opposition to a single payer health care system?

Selfishly - my job.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

Just because I believe one thing doesn't label me part of one party or another. I have many different beliefs that align with different parties. This is why I am an Independent. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I'm sorry if I don't feel like paying for other people's stuff. Where is that line drawn? What other things am I responsible for of other people? Should everyone have a car? Should everyone get access to TV? It's great that you feel one way on a certain subject. I applaud that. But it doesn't mean you're right. And winning an election doesn't make it right, either. If there was a vote that said "Should every American be given a million dollars?", I'm sure the answer would be yes. That doesn't mean it's right.

Did you just compare being able to afford health care to having access to a car or television? Seriously?

Actually, I didn't. I said where's the line. There will always be people in this world who can't afford healthcare. Can't afford food. Can't afford shelter. The world is a tough place.

There are single mothers out there who can't afford a lawyer to fight for child support they are owed. Should the whole country pay for people's lawyers? There are homeless people out there who can't afford nice clothes in order to get a job. Should we all be chipping in to buy these people clothes? There are families that live in roach infested apartments because they can't afford anything better. Should we all be taking money out of our paychecks to get them better housing?

If people want to help people in need, then great. That's a wonderful thing. But making everyone pay is not the way to go, IMO.

Actually you did and thank you for correcting that by offering comparisons that are not designed to exclusively be inflammatory.

We already try to provide food to the hungry and housing to the homeless and we could do a much better job of it too.

So you think it's okay that the most prosperous and awesome country in the history of the world has a homeless and hungry population with no access to medical care? We have tried the "charitable deeds" solution for decades and it really doesn't seem to be working.

And my point is not to support the ACA, which is without question a flawed piece of legislation, I am just curious if people are just opposed to the ACA specifically or if it is general opposition to helping our most needy citizens.

Again, I'll repeat that I did not compare the two. I clearly said:

Where is that line drawn? What other things am I responsible for of other people? Should everyone have a car? Should everyone get access to TV?

Not a big deal. But to answer your first question, do I think this country should be responsible for everyone? No. I don't. Because it will never happen. There will always be someone who needs something and they won't be able to afford it. It may sound harsh, but it's the way it works. There will always be people at the bottom and people at the top with a whole bunch of people in the middle. What makes this country great is that people have the choice to help others out. And they do. There are wonderful people with large amounts of money who donate a lot of money. People who donate their time and effort. The country is great when it comes to people helping others out. But that is by choice. Not a mandate from the government.

As for the second part, I love that this bill gets rid of the whole pre-existing thing. That was a scam. But making me pay more so others can get healthcare is pure socialism. And that's not what I support.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

For what it's worth, I think it's silly to argue with mattyl about this latest sidetrack. The ACA wasn't conceived or marketed solely as an expansion to Medicaid and I don't think anyone who is reasonably educated on the issue disputes that there are multiple reasons why people are uninsured and that not all uninsured are priced out of insurance. The system was designed to address the problem of those "rolling the dice" just as much as it addressesthe problem of those priced out of insurance. Because once they get cancer, both sets begin to roll up health care costs that affect everyone else's health care costs. That's why the system doesn't work without an individual mandate.

 

[Chaka]

The ~48M don't qualify for Medicaid. The ACA is essentially an expansion of Medicaid.

No one really disputes the ~48M number, your suggestion that half of those people could afford insurance is a completely unsubstantiated gut feeling with no basis in reality but let's say you are correct. That still leaves ~24M uninsured Americans.

Actually it isn't....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

Based on self-reported census data, in 2010, more than 49 million people in the US (more than 16% of the population) were without health insurance as defined in the questions asked. The percentage of the non-elderly population who are uninsured has been generally increasing since the year 2000.[6] Among the uninsured population, some 40 million were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 28 million worked at least part-time. About 37% of the uninsured live in households with incomes over $50,000.[3]

According to the Census Bureau, more than 40 million of the uninsured are US citizens. Another 9.7 million are non-citizens, but the Census Bureau does not distinguish in its estimate between documented and undocumented migrants.[3]It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[11] An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[12]

So nearly half, by these studies, of the uninsured can either already afford it or already qualify for public coverage. Personally I believe it's higher than that due to the very last line I cut and pasted - that in actuality only about 10% of the currently uninsured are actually uninsurable due to their health, and because basic coverage available today to people who can qualify for it medically (which apparently 90% of the uninsured can) is actually very inexpensive (just look at ehealth.com).

Again I ask, if we put in a mandate 2 years ago, I wonder what the number of uninsured in America would actually be today.

Take it one step further, even with a mandate - if prices go up 10, 20, 50, 100+% from where they are now - how many people who currently have coverage will now choose to go without (and be charged a penalty) leaving us right back to where we are now - just a different group of uninsured.

I conceded that point for the sake of argument. So there are ~24M Americans without access to health insurance. Is that okay?

 

[Chaka]

Actually you did and thank you for correcting that by offering comparisons that are not designed to exclusively be inflammatory.

We already try to provide food to the hungry and housing to the homeless and we could do a much better job of it too.

So you think it's okay that the most prosperous and awesome country in the history of the world has a homeless and hungry population with no access to medical care? We have tried the "charitable deeds" solution for decades and it really doesn't seem to be working.

And my point is not to support the ACA, which is without question a flawed piece of legislation, I am just curious if people are just opposed to the ACA specifically or if it is general opposition to helping our most needy citizens.

Access to health insurance does not mean access to medical care. People have access to medical care currently.

Emergency rooms? Free clinics?

 

[Chaka]

On a related note: What is the opposition to a single payer health care system?

Selfishly - my job.

How so?

 

[matttyl]

For what it's worth, I think it's silly to argue with mattyl about this latest sidetrack. The ACA wasn't conceived or marketed solely as an expansion to Medicaid and I don't think anyone who is reasonably educated on the issue disputes that there are multiple reasons why people are uninsured and that not all uninsured are priced out of insurance. The system was designed to address the problem of those "rolling the dice" just as much as it addressesthe problem of those priced out of insurance. Because once they get cancer, both sets begin to roll up health care costs that affect everyone else's health care costs. That's why the system doesn't work without an individual mandate.

Unless those without insurance can be denied care. Maybe that would get people to go out and buy coverage.....

That's also why I asked what it would look like today if an individual mandate were put in place 2 years ago (still under pre-ACA regulations). People advocating for the ACA say that prices will have to go down when more people get insurance, as you no longer have to account (as much) for providing coverage for the uninsured that is spread around to everyone. So if the ~50% of people who can already afford it or who already qualify for assistance (according to the study) obtain coverage, the uninsured in this country would go down to about ~24M. If all that can obtain coverage medically (roughly 90% of the uninsured) obtain coverage then the uninsured population would be reduced to ~5M. Percentage wise, that's less than half of the current uninsured population in Massachusetts - which has the lowest uninsured % in the country.

 

[Chaka]

But to answer your first question, do I think this country should be responsible for everyone? No. I don't. Because it will never happen. There will always be someone who needs something and they won't be able to afford it. It may sound harsh, but it's the way it works. There will always be people at the bottom and people at the top with a whole bunch of people in the middle. What makes this country great is that people have the choice to help others out. And they do. There are wonderful people with large amounts of money who donate a lot of money. People who donate their time and effort. The country is great when it comes to people helping others out. But that is by choice. Not a mandate from the government.

As for the second part, I love that this bill gets rid of the whole pre-existing thing. That was a scam. But making me pay more so others can get healthcare is pure socialism. And that's not what I support.

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

And "We can't help everything with everything so why bother helping anyone with anything" doesn't seem like a reasonable position either.

The market doesn't protect people, it protects profit. I say this as a small business owner who is desperately trying to make oodles and oodles of cash.

 

[matttyl]

Actually you did and thank you for correcting that by offering comparisons that are not designed to exclusively be inflammatory.

We already try to provide food to the hungry and housing to the homeless and we could do a much better job of it too.

So you think it's okay that the most prosperous and awesome country in the history of the world has a homeless and hungry population with no access to medical care? We have tried the "charitable deeds" solution for decades and it really doesn't seem to be working.

And my point is not to support the ACA, which is without question a flawed piece of legislation, I am just curious if people are just opposed to the ACA specifically or if it is general opposition to helping our most needy citizens.

Access to health insurance does not mean access to medical care. People have access to medical care currently.

Emergency rooms? Free clinics?

Both, and more. Just because you don't have health insurance doesn't mean you can't obtain care, you just pay more for it. Maybe that "more" is offset by you not paying premiums. You can still get a Dr. to write you a prescription. Your ability to pay for it is a different matter, but that price is dictated by the marketplace and the manufacturer of the drug (who by the way make FAR MORE money than insurance companies do).

 

[matttyl]

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

So then why are we providing more of it?! That makes no sense if that is truly your feeling.

 

[Chaka]

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

So then why are we providing more of it?! That makes no sense if that is truly your feeling.

Private charity has failed. I am fairly certain you understood that point.

There really just seems to be a general feeling of #### the poor from a couple of you.

 

[matttyl]

I conceded that point for the sake of argument. So there are ~24M Americans without access to health insurance. Is that okay?

Maybe. There are also umpteen million Americans HOUSEHOLDS without access to proper food - many more than those "without access to health insurance". Everyone needs food, not everyone needs health insurance.

Also, as I said I still feel that ~24M number is very high when apparently only ~5M of the current ~50M uninsured are only that way because of their health. If they can't afford the health insurance that is available and that they medically qualify for, that's where public assistance comes in. Again, if the ~50% of the current uninsured who can either currently afford coverage or get public assistance in obtaining coverage - wouldn't that mean prices will go down since the uninsured population was cut in half? Doesn't everyone advocating for the ACA proclaim that as more people get coverage prices will go down? So when that happens, wouldn't that mean that more of those "~24M Americans" could then afford coverage, and prices continue to drop? That would allow even more people to be able to afford the now cheaper coverage.

 

[matttyl]

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

So then why are we providing more of it?! That makes no sense if that is truly your feeling.

Private charity has failed. I am fairly certain you understood that point.

There really just seems to be a general feeling of #### the poor from a couple of you.

Not at all. The poor have a safety net already, called Medicaid. Then there are other technically "poor" people who can still afford coverage if they just applied for it (as only ~10% of uninsured in America are that way due to their health) - maybe if they did without a cell phone or cable TV or whatever, or bought a used car instead of new or whatever.

 

[Chaka]

Actually you did and thank you for correcting that by offering comparisons that are not designed to exclusively be inflammatory.

We already try to provide food to the hungry and housing to the homeless and we could do a much better job of it too.

So you think it's okay that the most prosperous and awesome country in the history of the world has a homeless and hungry population with no access to medical care? We have tried the "charitable deeds" solution for decades and it really doesn't seem to be working.

And my point is not to support the ACA, which is without question a flawed piece of legislation, I am just curious if people are just opposed to the ACA specifically or if it is general opposition to helping our most needy citizens.

Access to health insurance does not mean access to medical care. People have access to medical care currently.

Emergency rooms? Free clinics?

Both, and more. Just because you don't have health insurance doesn't mean you can't obtain care, you just pay more for it. Maybe that "more" is offset by you not paying premiums. You can still get a Dr. to write you a prescription. Your ability to pay for it is a different matter, but that price is dictated by the marketplace and the manufacturer of the drug (who by the way make FAR MORE money than insurance companies do).

Okay so they have access to free health care. Sure thing. And there is apparently no downside to the rest of society in any way because Hey, it's free!

Look, son the nice doctor wrote me a prescription for your emergency asthma medication. I couldn't afford to buy you the medication because, y'know we need to eat and have a roof over our head, but I am sure the marketplace will figure that out and it will be smooth sailing for us from here on out. Hooray?

 

[Chaka]

I conceded that point for the sake of argument. So there are ~24M Americans without access to health insurance. Is that okay?

Maybe. There are also umpteen million Americans HOUSEHOLDS without access to proper food - many more than those "without access to health insurance". Everyone needs food, not everyone needs health insurance.

Also, as I said I still feel that ~24M number is very high when apparently only ~5M of the current ~50M uninsured are only that way because of their health. If they can't afford the health insurance that is available and that they medically qualify for, that's where public assistance comes in. Again, if the ~50% of the current uninsured who can either currently afford coverage or get public assistance in obtaining coverage - wouldn't that mean prices will go down since the uninsured population was cut in half? Doesn't everyone advocating for the ACA proclaim that as more people get coverage prices will go down? So when that happens, wouldn't that mean that more of those "~24M Americans" could then afford coverage, and prices continue to drop? That would allow even more people to be able to afford the now cheaper coverage.

Well if we can't provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for everyone (along with big screen TVs and cars) then let's not help anyone with anything.

Brilliant!

 

[Chaka]

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

So then why are we providing more of it?! That makes no sense if that is truly your feeling.

Private charity has failed. I am fairly certain you understood that point.

There really just seems to be a general feeling of #### the poor from a couple of you.

Not at all. The poor have a safety net already, called Medicaid. Then there are other technically "poor" people who can still afford coverage if they just applied for it (as only ~10% of uninsured in America are that way due to their health) - maybe if they did without a cell phone or cable TV or whatever, or bought a used car instead of new or whatever.

And we're right back to the ~50M people who don't qualify for Medicaid.

Well done.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

For what it's worth, I think it's silly to argue with mattyl about this latest sidetrack. The ACA wasn't conceived or marketed solely as an expansion to Medicaid and I don't think anyone who is reasonably educated on the issue disputes that there are multiple reasons why people are uninsured and that not all uninsured are priced out of insurance. The system was designed to address the problem of those "rolling the dice" just as much as it addressesthe problem of those priced out of insurance. Because once they get cancer, both sets begin to roll up health care costs that affect everyone else's health care costs. That's why the system doesn't work without an individual mandate.

Unless those without insurance can be denied care. Maybe that would get people to go out and buy coverage.....

That's also why I asked what it would look like today if an individual mandate were put in place 2 years ago (still under pre-ACA regulations). People advocating for the ACA say that prices will have to go down when more people get insurance, as you no longer have to account (as much) for providing coverage for the uninsured that is spread around to everyone. So if the ~50% of people who can already afford it or who already qualify for assistance (according to the study) obtain coverage, the uninsured in this country would go down to about ~24M. If all that can obtain coverage medically (roughly 90% of the uninsured) obtain coverage then the uninsured population would be reduced to ~5M. Percentage wise, that's less than half of the current uninsured population in Massachusetts - which has the lowest uninsured % in the country.

An individual mandate without concomitant provisions applying to insurance providers would be a disaster (it would also have been completely impossible to pass through Congress). It wouldn't address the cost of insurance for those working poor who actually ARE priced out of insurance (and they are certainly not a trivial percentage of the uninsured). It wouldn't provide any relief for those unlucky uninsured who have pre-existing conditions, who would face a mandate to purchase insurance that nobody will give them (or nobody will give them affordably). And it wouldn't address the poor sap who possibility obeys the mandate, purchases insurance, and then runs up against a lifetime cap on drugs or something.

The best case scenario is that we end up expanding Medicaid for those people and suck them up into that system. In which case, OK, those costs won't show on your premiums. They'll just be externalized somewhere else. You're still paying them somewhere.

I don't quite understand why you keep making the point about drug manufacturers making more than insurance companies. Lots of aspects of the health system make more than the insurers. The point was never that the insurers drive up prices. It's that they drive down prices because they can pool risk and negotiate in bulk. That's why we want more people insured. Because more insured people means more people whose prices for drugs are negotiated from a place of at least somewhat more power.

This is why liberals always prefer single-payer. If we want to have a lot of power of drug company profits we could do that easily. We could give them one customer to sell to in the United States. And drug companies will argue that they then won't invest in R&D and then liberals will make jokes about how "R&D" for drug companies means "boner pill ads."

 

[Chaka]

I was very much opposed to the ACA because of the individual mandate but 1) it's the law of the land so I accept that and will work within those parameters until it is not the law of the land 2) if you don't like it then go win an election and do something about it.

And seriously what is the problem with single payer?

 

[TheIronSheik]

But to answer your first question, do I think this country should be responsible for everyone? No. I don't. Because it will never happen. There will always be someone who needs something and they won't be able to afford it. It may sound harsh, but it's the way it works. There will always be people at the bottom and people at the top with a whole bunch of people in the middle. What makes this country great is that people have the choice to help others out. And they do. There are wonderful people with large amounts of money who donate a lot of money. People who donate their time and effort. The country is great when it comes to people helping others out. But that is by choice. Not a mandate from the government.

As for the second part, I love that this bill gets rid of the whole pre-existing thing. That was a scam. But making me pay more so others can get healthcare is pure socialism. And that's not what I support.

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

And "We can't help everything with everything so why bother helping anyone with anything" doesn't seem like a reasonable position either.

The market doesn't protect people, it protects profit. I say this as a small business owner who is desperately trying to make oodles and oodles of cash.

I respect your opinion. Our opinions definitely are not the same on this subject. But I do understand everything you are saying.

 

[matttyl]

Well if we can't provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for everyone (along with big screen TVs and cars) then let's not help anyone with anything.

Brilliant!

Rank those 4 from most important to least important for me.

 

[TheIronSheik]

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

So then why are we providing more of it?! That makes no sense if that is truly your feeling.

Private charity has failed. I am fairly certain you understood that point.

There really just seems to be a general feeling of #### the poor from a couple of you.

That's a little harsh.

 

[matttyl]

I don't quite understand why you keep making the point about drug manufacturers making more than insurance companies. Lots of aspects of the health system make more than the insurers. The point was never that the insurers drive up prices. It's that they drive down prices because they can pool risk and negotiate in bulk. That's why we want more people insured. Because more insured people means more people whose prices for drugs are negotiated from a place of at least somewhat more power.

Thank you so much for understanding that point that many here simply don't seem to grasp. But if the point was never that insurers drive up prices, why are so many people thrilled at the 80-20 rule and how much that will "have to" lower premiums?

 

[Chaka]

We have been trying charity as a means for protecting citizens and that has left us where we are today. It isn't working.

So then why are we providing more of it?! That makes no sense if that is truly your feeling.

Private charity has failed. I am fairly certain you understood that point.

There really just seems to be a general feeling of #### the poor from a couple of you.

That's a little harsh.

I also said you had a heart of gold.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Well if we can't provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for everyone (along with big screen TVs and cars) then let's not help anyone with anything.

Brilliant!

Rank those 4 from most important to least important for me.

1) Food

2) Shelter

3) Clothing

4) Medical Care

 

[matttyl]

An individual mandate without concomitant provisions applying to insurance providers would be a disaster (it would also have been completely impossible to pass through Congress). It wouldn't address the cost of insurance for those working poor who actually ARE priced out of insurance (and they are certainly not a trivial percentage of the uninsured). It wouldn't provide any relief for those unlucky uninsured who have pre-existing conditions, who would face a mandate to purchase insurance that nobody will give them (or nobody will give them affordably). And it wouldn't address the poor sap who possibility obeys the mandate, purchases insurance, and then runs up against a lifetime cap on drugs or something.

All in all I agree with that, I was just asking. Part of the mandate could be that you would be exempt from it if you can show that you have been declined from 2 or more carriers. Just a thought.

Also, how many of those people are "priced out" or "uninsurable" because of per-existing conditions that they themselves are responsible for? What if they are uninsurable because their BMI is 25 or 30 or above? Why should I be forced to step in and provide help to people who won't help themselves? How about someone who's smoked for 20 years and now has emphysema? Again, why should I help those who choose not to help themselves?

I'm someone truly can not afford coverage, that's what Medicaid is for. If someone is uninsurable because of a pre-ex they brought on themselves, why should I have to step in and help? I've got my own situations I have to take care of.

As for the last "poor sap" in your example, I bet he's damn glad he had the insurance to pay for those meds up to his lifetime cap which was typically in the millions before anything from the ACA changed it!

 

[matttyl]

Well if we can't provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for everyone (along with big screen TVs and cars) then let's not help anyone with anything.

Brilliant!

Rank those 4 from most important to least important for me.

1) Food

2) Shelter

3) Clothing

4) Medical Care

Anything else important enough to go above the current #4? Water? Some Americans still don't have access to adequate clean drinking water. I'd say that more important than medical care, as with it, in theory, less medical care would be needed - same idea with food. It goes back to IronSheik's question above, where do we draw the line at what society should provide for EVERYONE, regardless of income or their desire to provide for themselves and better their own situation?

 

[Chaka]

Well if we can't provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for everyone (along with big screen TVs and cars) then let's not help anyone with anything.

Brilliant!

Rank those 4 from most important to least important for me.

1) Food

2) Shelter

3) Clothing

4) Medical Care

Anything else important enough to go above the current #4? Water? Some Americans still don't have access to adequate clean drinking water. I'd say that more important than medical care, as with it, in theory, less medical care would be needed - same idea with food. It goes back to IronSheik's question above, where do we draw the line at what society should provide for EVERYONE, regardless of income or their desire to provide for themselves and better their own situation?

So I am reading this as you being opposed to providing food, shelter, clothing, water and medical care to the most desperate American citizens? And this is because you think the market and private charity will provide for them?

Where do you stand on police protection, fire protection and education of America's youth?

 

[BassNBrew]

Chaka...I wanted to personally thank you as well as anyone else paying a little bit more to help pay for my gold plan insurance premiums next year.

 

[Chaka]

Chaka...I wanted to personally thank you as well as anyone else paying a little bit more to help pay for my gold plan insurance premiums next year.

You're welcome I think, but I really have no idea what point you are trying to make with that comment.

 

[Woogie Lee]

Yeah yeah yeah, the numbers are all bad and stuff. But have you seen how much people pay for entertainment? This is probably going to be pretty cheap in comparison if we all take the time to sit back and laugh about it a little.

And you are bringing up an excellent point indirectly. The person who wasn't paying, now they pay $200 a month, that $200 was used before for things like entertainment. Now instead of going to the movies for $10-$15, they gotta stay home. Enough of that happens and suddenly we don't need all those folks at the movie theatre working so they cut back on staff or decrease hours for everyone there. It has a domino effect on things does it not?

Probably. But if they just take a moment to laugh about it, they've replaced the value of the movie at least. I'm not sure on the dominoes and all of that, but how amusingly bad this is does provide some replacement value for the money in and of itself.

Why would we possibly care whether jobs are created in the health care services industry or in the movie theater concession industry?

Serious question. While laughter IS the best medicine, are slippery slopes covered under the pre-existing condition clause or are they treated as something else? Maybe like accupuncture?Schlzm

If you want a serious answer, you might try posting a comprehensible question.

I'm sorry. It's hard to take people like MoP seriously on economic issues when they make comments that a show a fundamental lack of understanding of economics.

I'm sorry, but who are you?Schlzm

I'm Ramsey Hunt Experience.

Would it help if I signed all my posts?

 

[matttyl]

So I am reading this as you being opposed to providing food, shelter, clothing, water and medical care to the most desperate American citizens? And this is because you think the market and private charity will provide for them?

Where do you stand on police protection, fire protection and education of America's youth?

No, I'm not opposed to any of it (in general). I was really just asking where we draw the line. We need to protect, educate, feed, shelter and so forth for our population. Is health insurance a "right"? Is it also a requirement? Where does freedom of choice come in? If someone's freedom of choice has left them overweight and uninsurable, why is that my problem to resolve (pay for)?

 

[Schlzm]

I know this isn't going to be the most popular opinion, but at some point I do say #### the poor because supporting everyone else is degrading MY quality of life.

Schlzm

 

[TheIronSheik]

I know this isn't going to be the most popular opinion, but at some point I do say #### the poor because supporting everyone else is degrading MY quality of life.

Schlzm

Ya know, I'm sure it could have been said a little more eloquently, but I tend to agree with you.

 

[BassNBrew]

Chaka...I wanted to personally thank you as well as anyone else paying a little bit more to help pay for my gold plan insurance premiums next year.

You're welcome I think, but I really have no idea what point you are trying to make with that comment.

The amount I'll be paying each month will be going down. I guess technically my comment was incorrect because my base rate is also going up, so I'm in the group paying more to help others. It's just that someone will be paying a nice portion of my monthly premium.

 

[BassNBrew]

From the Blue Cross website...

If you do not wish to apply for a subsidy, you can start your renewal now.

If you want to apply for a subsidy, you will need to visit the Health Insurance Marketplace, also known as the Marketplace. The Marketplace became operational on October 1, 2013 and may not yet be operating as expected. You may wish to delay starting your renewal until the Marketplace is working as expected. There is still plenty of time as your deadline for making changes to your policy is not until December 15, 2013 for a January 1, 2014 effective date.

Or, if you prefer, you can still start the renewal process now. Later in the process we will save your application and offer to email you when the Marketplace is fully operational.