or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Insurance Costs Under Obamacare - Page 16

post #226 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

It's rare, but it's times like these I pity the poors. Sure, I'll have to pay a little more for my insurance but I'm a 17%er. I'll be fine. The poor on the other hand are going to get soaked. Fuck 'em. We tried to warn them but they elected that fuckwit anyway. It's their own fault.

lol no. 2 years tops before they start telling us that poors and olds still can't afford healthcare and The Rich (i.e. anyone who pays taxes) need to pay their fair share to help them.
post #227 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

It's rare, but it's times like these I pity the poors. Sure, I'll have to pay a little more for my insurance but I'm a 17%er. I'll be fine. The poor on the other hand are going to get soaked. Fuck 'em. We tried to warn them but they elected that fuckwit anyway. It's their own fault.

Yeah, only the poors voted for Obama *eyeroll*. The truly poor already get Medicaid benefits and Obamacare offers pretty generous subsidies for those making up to 400% of poverty level ($45k per individual and around $95k for a family). So it isn't the poors that will absorb this cost.
post #228 of 739
It won't be the rich paying for it. It's never the rich. That's why we're rich, we're smarter than the poors.

Edit - again, we'll pay a little more, but this is a tax on the poor. That's all it ever was.
post #229 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace_Face View Post

Yeah, only the poors voted for Obama *eyeroll*. The truly poor already get Medicaid benefits and Obamacare offers pretty generous subsidies for those making up to 400% of poverty level ($45k per individual and around $95k for a family). So it isn't the poors that will absorb this cost.

It's amazing to me. When Obama was Candidate Obama a family earning 250k was "rich." Now a family earning 100k needs help paying their Obamabills. That's progress!
post #230 of 739
What part of "Because Fuck you, that's why" didn't you understand?
Quote:
How important was it to the passage of Obamacare that you could keep your coverage if you liked it? Pretty damn important, I'd wager, since it offered comfort to vast majority of folks who were happy with their insurance and rightly feared that the president's transformative, sweeping reform would wipe out a lot of stuff.

Which is exactly what's happening. Check it out, via CBS News:

People across the country are finding out they're losing their existing insurance plans under Obamacare because requirements in the law, such as prenatal and prescription drug coverage, mean their old plans aren't comprehensive enough.

In California, Kaiser Permanente terminated policies for 160,000 people. In Florida, at least 300,000 people are losing coverage.

That includes 56-year-old Dianne Barrette. Last month, she received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield informing her as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. Barrette pays $54 a month. The new plan she's being offered would run $591 a month -- 10 times more than what she currently pays.

Barrette said, "What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?"

But hey, Obama won the election. Get over it. What part of screw you don't you understand?

And here is an NBC News report that argues

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Nancy Pelosi be damned! It sure seems as if the O-Team knew what it was doing all along. And it had nothing to do with keeping your health plan if you liked it.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/28/2010-obamacare-flashback-yes-you-can-kee
post #231 of 739
Quote:
The Chicago Sun-Times reports on the oh-so-ironic reversal of Sue Klinkhamer, 60, who used to work for Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), who lost his seat partly because voters didn't want Obamacare. Klinkhamer wrote her old boss:

“I spent two years defending Obamacare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can’t put in print. The congressman was not re-elected in 2010 mainly because of the anti-Obamacare anger. When the congressman was not re-elected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job. I was upset that because of the health care issue, I didn’t have a job anymore but still defended Obamacare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong.”

On September 1 of this year, Klinkhamer was paying $291 a month for an insurance policy with a $3,500 deductible. Those days are over, though, as of December 31, when her policy goes away. Instead,

"I can have a plan with similar benefits for $647.12 (or) I can have a plan with similar (but higher) pricing for $322.32 but with a $6,500 deductible.”

Read more here.

What arguably makes this state of affairs worse is that the Obama administration seems to have known all along that folks such as Klinkhamer were gonna get screwed. But hey, President Obama won the election, so get over it, right?

http://www.sadtrombone.com/
post #232 of 739
Saw this recently, made me laugh:

post #233 of 739
I'm quickly moving from the delay to avoid the pain camp to the no delays so everyone can feel the pain. My company's policies already ramped up significantly a year ago to meet the new standards and costs.

About a 50% increase in premiums and less options. We used to be able to choose our copay, deductible, drug coverage, and a couple other factors independently. Now we get bronze, silver, gold, and that's it.

Maybe if other people have to suffer through the change, there is a chance for repeal.
post #234 of 739
NBC is even reporting that millions will lose their plan, and this documented as early as 2010.
post #235 of 739
This is a difficult issue for me to handle diplomatically. You see, I do think limited universal healthcare should be treated as a public good, but I stress the word "limited" I do not think the taxpayers should fund unlimited healthcare particularly in end of life situations. I also believe a Bismarck system is far superior to a Canadian or UK style one, and given the rankings of some of the world's biggest Bismarck systems (France, Germany, Japan), I feel empirical evidence supports this. The Bismarck system places the players (funders, the insured, the providers) into a more capitalistic stance and removes government from allocating tax dollars which I feel is always a sure road to moral hazard.

So while I believe in universal health I do not believe in the vision of it 99.9999% of liberals in the US have. The "SINGLE PAYER HURR DURR" is deafening and the assholes are so sure they have "The Way" figured out yet do not even know there are more choices than single payer. I want to punch people that are surprised the ACA is a fucking mess and I really want to punch people that are upset now only because they've found that they are in the pool of people that are being told, "You got yours but fuck you we're taking some of it." It's the height of hypocrisy and I hate those smug fucking assholes that self-righteously feel they can dig their fat greasy fingers into my wallet yet get twisted when they get it too.
post #236 of 739
Quote:
Valerie Jarrett ✔ @vj44
FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.
8:07 PM - 28 Oct 2013
post #237 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Saw this recently, made me laugh:


They might have gotten some traction on delaying if they hadn't started the fight at "Defund or the Government gets shut down." On top of the fact that defunding was never going to happen, it made "well, just delay it a year" sound like "well, just delay it for a year so we can try to defund it again."

Waiting a week for the bad launch, then go into the debt ceiling with a delay on the table...might have worked, and might have been a good thing given the clusterfuck the rollout is turning out to be right now.
post #238 of 739
Obama seemed to know about the computer problems in advance, but did the Republicans or anyone else?
post #239 of 739
Quote:
Pretzel_Warrior (4,288 posts)
4. They should say, "oh, those? Not really insurance so it doesn't count"

Most NORMAL RATIONAL people understand that to mean that regular workers on employment based insurance aren't going to be forced onto other plans by Obamacare. And they are not being forced.

MOST people understand that to mean People won't be pushed off of Medicare or Medicaid.

This law helps the eternally stupid by not allowing insurance companies to sell them shitty non insurance.
post #240 of 739
And Bloomberg helps the eternally stupid from getting fat by preventing them from drinking too much soda at the movies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare