Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[Popeye_Card]

Also, do people really spend more than $100/month on car insurance? That blows my mind.

How much do you pay? I'm pretty close to $100/mo to insure a new but cheap car. At least according to this list, most people are paying more than $100/mo.

My wife and I pay $105 combined for full coverage on 2 new vehicles (1 truck and 1 car).

I've never paid more than $75 for one car for full coverage, even in my teens/early 20s.

Ya gotta shop around.

I'm sure Arthur Dent shops around plenty. Where you live has way more impact on what you pay than your bargain hunting skills.

We're both in Texas, I believe...AD in Austin, and DFW myself.

I highly doubt there's much difference between the 2. If anything, I'd be willing to bet DFW would be the higher of the locations.

All depends on your zip code, and what car you drive. Different zip codes in StL can vary by more than $50 a month for the same vehicle.

[Popeye_Card]

It feels like the popular trend anymore is to deflect almost all costs to the middle class. Democrats in my mind stand up for the poor and the republicans stand up for the rich.

Make no mistake, they both stand up for the rich. The Democrats just do it by pretending like they care for the poor, while Republicans try to convince the middle class that they would be rich if it weren't for the damn poor people.

[lukethedrifter]

The insurance that I have for my wife and daughter was "canceled" and I had to get a slightly different one that will at this point cost me $3 less/month. What I'm concerned about is that it appears that they did not get all of the same providers to sign on so I have to look into that.

[Arthur Dent]

Also, do people really spend more than $100/month on car insurance? That blows my mind.

How much do you pay? I'm pretty close to $100/mo to insure a new but cheap car. At least according to this list, most people are paying more than $100/mo.

My wife and I pay $105 combined for full coverage on 2 new vehicles (1 truck and 1 car).

I've never paid more than $75 for one car for full coverage, even in my teens/early 20s.

Ya gotta shop around.

I'm sure Arthur Dent shops around plenty. Where you live has way more impact on what you pay than your bargain hunting skills.

I haven't really and should, but this is getting off topic, so let me start another thread.

[Socnorb11]

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Here Is What’s Wrong With That Story About Obama Knowing That Your Health Care Policy Would Get Cancelled

This all sounds very ominous until you consider that the naturally high turnover rate associated with the individual market means that it’s highly unlikely that individuals would still be enrolled in plans from 2010 in 2014. In fact, the Obama administration publicly admitted this when it issued the regulations in 2010, leading Republicans like Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to seize on the story in order to push for repeal of the grandfather regulations...

The debate was widely covered in the press, so it’s unclear what exactly the NBC investigation unit has uncovered...

So yes, individuals can keep the plans they have if those plans remain largely the same. But individuals receiving cancellation notices will have a choice of enrolling in subsidized insurance in the exchanges and will probably end up paying less for more coverage.

Except that's not at all what's happening. Thinkprogress.org can keep blowing smoke and sucking on rainbows but the reality is that people are getting gouged.

From the LA Times, not exactly a conservative paper

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

We're talking about $140 per month. Since health insurance isn't taxed, we're probably talking about somewhere around $100 per month extra that they're going to pay, and their insurance is going to be significantly better.

If this is what's wrong with the ACA, then it's going to be a huge success.

[pioneer98]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/280849/

Slow and steady wins the race, according to the old Aesop fable, and that's also what happened in the state of Massachusetts, when it rolled out its new health-coverage plans in 2007. Today, 97 percent of people in the state have health insurance of one type or another. But when the state's bid for universal coverage got started, it launched to a very slow start, according to those oversaw the rollout in the state. And that's without all the website issues that have plagued Healthcare.gov.

"To my friends in the media, I have one message: please take a chill pill. You won't see 7 million enrollees for a while, and that's not failure, that's real world," John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was deeply involved in the passage and implementation of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform law, wrote of the new Obamacare program in mid-October. In Massachusetts, getting people signed up "was a slow crawl, not a sprint."

[letsgocards89]

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Here Is What’s Wrong With That Story About Obama Knowing That Your Health Care Policy Would Get Cancelled

This all sounds very ominous until you consider that the naturally high turnover rate associated with the individual market means that it’s highly unlikely that individuals would still be enrolled in plans from 2010 in 2014. In fact, the Obama administration publicly admitted this when it issued the regulations in 2010, leading Republicans like Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to seize on the story in order to push for repeal of the grandfather regulations...

The debate was widely covered in the press, so it’s unclear what exactly the NBC investigation unit has uncovered...

So yes, individuals can keep the plans they have if those plans remain largely the same. But individuals receiving cancellation notices will have a choice of enrolling in subsidized insurance in the exchanges and will probably end up paying less for more coverage.

Except that's not at all what's happening. Thinkprogress.org can keep blowing smoke and sucking on rainbows but the reality is that people are getting gouged.

From the LA Times, not exactly a conservative paper

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

We're talking about $140 per month. Since health insurance isn't taxed, we're probably talking about somewhere around $100 per month extra that they're going to pay, and their insurance is going to be significantly better.

If this is what's wrong with the ACA, then it's going to be a huge success.

Spending other people's money, insisting that the alternative is better. Based on what? You don't know what that lady needs, nor anyone else. It's entirely possible, and highly likely, she had the insurance she wanted based on her needs as well as an extra $140 a month in her pocket.

[letsgocards89]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/280849/

Slow and steady wins the race, according to the old Aesop fable, and that's also what happened in the state of Massachusetts, when it rolled out its new health-coverage plans in 2007. Today, 97 percent of people in the state have health insurance of one type or another. But when the state's bid for universal coverage got started, it launched to a very slow start, according to those oversaw the rollout in the state. And that's without all the website issues that have plagued Healthcare.gov.

"To my friends in the media, I have one message: please take a chill pill. You won't see 7 million enrollees for a while, and that's not failure, that's real world," John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was deeply involved in the passage and implementation of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform law, wrote of the new Obamacare program in mid-October. In Massachusetts, getting people signed up "was a slow crawl, not a sprint."

I don't know if it's a great strategy to try and use Romneycare to prop up Obamacare, when you consider that Romneycare sucks too.

[Popeye_Card]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/280849/

Slow and steady wins the race, according to the old Aesop fable, and that's also what happened in the state of Massachusetts, when it rolled out its new health-coverage plans in 2007. Today, 97 percent of people in the state have health insurance of one type or another. But when the state's bid for universal coverage got started, it launched to a very slow start, according to those oversaw the rollout in the state. And that's without all the website issues that have plagued Healthcare.gov.

"To my friends in the media, I have one message: please take a chill pill. You won't see 7 million enrollees for a while, and that's not failure, that's real world," John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was deeply involved in the passage and implementation of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform law, wrote of the new Obamacare program in mid-October. In Massachusetts, getting people signed up "was a slow crawl, not a sprint."

I don't know if it's a great strategy to try and use Romneycare to prop up Obamacare, when you consider that Romneycare sucks too.

Why does Romneycare suck? Because it apparently does not cover the cost of razors?

[letsgocards89]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/280849/

Slow and steady wins the race, according to the old Aesop fable, and that's also what happened in the state of Massachusetts, when it rolled out its new health-coverage plans in 2007. Today, 97 percent of people in the state have health insurance of one type or another. But when the state's bid for universal coverage got started, it launched to a very slow start, according to those oversaw the rollout in the state. And that's without all the website issues that have plagued Healthcare.gov.

"To my friends in the media, I have one message: please take a chill pill. You won't see 7 million enrollees for a while, and that's not failure, that's real world," John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was deeply involved in the passage and implementation of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform law, wrote of the new Obamacare program in mid-October. In Massachusetts, getting people signed up "was a slow crawl, not a sprint."

I don't know if it's a great strategy to try and use Romneycare to prop up Obamacare, when you consider that Romneycare sucks too.

Why does Romneycare suck? Because it apparently does not cover the cost of razors?

Costs are up, deductibles are up, wait times are up, all that fun stuff.