• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Affordable" Care Act - Yeah, Right.

WildCat said:
It's not your income that matters as far as subsidies goes, it's what the household income is. So Person A who makes just $15,000 a year doesn't qualify for a subsidy if his roommate makes $55,000. Not that the roommate is going to kick in for the health insurance, Person A probably just goes without and gets penalized on his taxes.
Click to expand...
The roommate issue aside (which is nonsense), if it was not obvious that I was talking about household income, then you are completely blinded by ideology on this issue.

But if you are going to play the semantics game, I'll point out that "you" can be both a singular and plural pronoun. Not knowing Newtons Bit's situation, it is entirely appropriate for me to use the generic "you" to refer to either, as appropriate.
 
Unabogie said:
Ah, reading his Twitter feed, it's not that they're "sent back to the website", it's that the recording says that you can go to the website (har har!) or press a button to get a live agent. Tsk, tsk. Not really honest there.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Busted...
 
Unabogie said:
This is a lie. You can do this right now, which I've proven with a direct link to an insurer. I don't know how much clearer this could be.
Click to expand...

You need to figure out how to read for comprehension. Here is the entire relevant paragraph:

Aside from the problems the exchange website has been experiencing, at this point there's basically no way to evaluate a lot of the plans because many of them haven't set their reimbursement rates yet and so doctors don't even know if they'll accept those plans. So you can buy a plan (if you're lucky enough to get the website to work), but you can't actually figure out what the plan offers because the providers are unknown.​

Note the highlighted parts, which include qualifiers. These make it explicit that I'm not talking about all plans, but a subset of plans. The second sentence doesn't explicitly include those qualifiers, but since it only logically follows for the subset of plans the previous qualifiers refer to, it should be obvious to any reader with a modicum of sense that the second sentence doesn't refer to all plans either.

So I'm left wondering whether you don't have a modicum of sense, or whether you're deliberately trying to misread my post.

Adverse selection is when sick people gravitate to plans which drives the cost up, pricing out healthier people. Under the new law, it doesn't matter if you're sick or not, as cost is no longer dependent on your health. And the individual mandate means that almost everyone will participate, which is the opposite of adverse selection.
Click to expand...

Almost everyone will participate? Why on earth would they? Healthy young people are better off just paying the fine. And the point that cost is no longer dependent on health is exactly what drives the adverse selection problem.
 
Last edited:
Two years ago, my insurance carrier raised my premium by 35 percent (though I avoided paying that large an increase by switching to another company). Large increases can happen with or without Obamacare.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
You need to figure out how to read for comprehension. Here is the entire relevant paragraph:

Aside from the problems the exchange website has been experiencing, at this point there's basically no way to evaluate a lot of the plans because many of them haven't set their reimbursement rates yet and so doctors don't even know if they'll accept those plans. So you can buy a plan (if you're lucky enough to get the website to work), but you can't actually figure out what the plan offers because the providers are unknown.​

You lied about not knowing who the providers are. Are you really going to stick to that lie? It's false. I proved it's false. That you used weasel words doesn't change the fact that you lied about something so basic.

Will you admit it?

True or false: A customer can't buy insurance now because they can't "figure out what the plan offers because the providers are unknown."

Note the highlighted parts, which include qualifiers. These make it explicit that I'm not talking about all plans, but a subset of plans. The second sentence doesn't explicitly include those qualifiers, but since it only logically follows for the subset of plans the previous qualifiers refer to, it should be obvious to any reader with a modicum of sense that the second sentence doesn't refer to all plans either.
Click to expand...

You got busted lying again. We've been through this before when you falsely claimed that "ClimateGate" showed the scientists were lying because of "error prone code".

So I'm left wondering whether you don't have a modicum of sense, or whether you're deliberately trying to misread my post.
Click to expand...

Personal attack noted. I read your weaselly post and demonstrated that you're being dishonest. People can sign up right now for health insurance, which is the opposite of what you wrote. And my, how you peppered your words with squishyness. It's almost as if you knew you were spouting bs.

at this point there's basically no way to evaluate a lot of the plans because many of them haven't set their reimbursement rates yet and so doctors don't even know if they'll accept those plans. So you can buy a plan (if you're lucky enough to get the website to work), but you can't actually figure out what the plan offers because the providers are unknown.
Click to expand...

The bold, again, is a lie. The rest is weasel-speak in support of the dishonesty.

Almost everyone will participate? Why on earth would they? Healthy young people are better off just paying the fine. And the point that cost is no longer dependent on health is exactly what drives the adverse selection problem.
Click to expand...

1. Look in Massachusetts. Almost everyone participates because...
2. People want health care.
3. You still don't understand adverse selection. Adverse selection is caused by sick people driving up the cost of health care, so carriers increase the price, which causes healthier people to drop out. With fewer healthy people, more sick people have to be priced out, which increases costs again. Having everyone participate (because it's cheap and there are incentives like subsidies and good health) solves that problem. Looky here:

http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/sites/default/files/Uninsured_in_MA_infographic_jpeg_0.jpg

Amazing that it works pretty well there.
Click to expand...
 
Upchurch said:
All-in-all, I agree. The ACA is just slapping a bandage on the problem. UHC is the better solution, by far.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately if ACA doesn't work, we'll never get UHC because the opponents will refuse to recognize any difference between them.
 
WildCat said:
I have no idea what it means since I'm unable to even create an account and get that far. I'm just going by the definition of "household" I'm familiar with, if you have the ACA definition post a link to it.
Click to expand...
I am guessing if you have roommates, you have somebody else do your taxes, and you really haven't been following the gay marriage issue very closely.

Daredelvis
 
Sabretooth said:
Just got my packet for my 2014 health care.

Premiums are increasing by $1,200 for the year.

Co-Pays are also increasing. Well-visits are no longer free.

So much for "affordable". Biggest misnomer in history.

It's a pile of horse crap and Obama is big *********** liar.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're classifying as "well-visits", but nearly all preventive care should be free to you, under the rules of ACA. I would recommend looking around at other carriers, unless you're very firmly wed to the one you've got.

ETA: Really vital question: Is this employer-provided coverage, or are you purchasing coverage through the individual market?

Pro-tip: Some insurers are going to automatically map you into the plan they want you to be on - usually one where they think they stand to make the best margin. It's not necessarily the best plan for your needs. So it's always a good idea to peruse their other plans (as well as competitor's plans) before you sign off.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Not everyone wants or needs an ACA-compliant plan.
Click to expand...
Wants or needs has nothing to do with it though. Unless you purchased your plan prior to March 23, 2010 AND you have stayed on that exact same plan (with very minimal allowed changes) AND your insurer has committed to continue provide that exact plan... then you're going to get something that is ACA compliant whether you want it or not.

Ziggurat said:
Aside from the problems the exchange website has been experiencing, at this point there's basically no way to evaluate a lot of the plans because many of them haven't set their reimbursement rates yet and so doctors don't even know if they'll accept those plans. So you can buy a plan (if you're lucky enough to get the website to work), but you can't actually figure out what the plan offers because the providers are unknown.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I think this might vary by state... and it might be a matter of interpretation.

In my states, we were required to file provider information earlier this year - we needed to be able to prove network adequacy before we could be approved to sell in our market. Even if the rules aren't quite that stringent in your state, network adequacy is a component of being a qualified health plan, so the providers should be known for any carrier selling on the exchange.

It's also potentially a matter of interpretation and misunderstanding. I have heard that many states don't have the provider information loaded into their exchanges yet (this is true for one of my states). So when you try to search for providers, you get a message along the lines of "no providers exist". This doesn't mean that the insurer doesn't have contracts in place, they probably do. It just means that this particular piece of information isn't yet loaded or functional in the exchange platform.
 
Emily Cat said:
If you're making less than 400% FPL, then you do qualify for subsidies - assuming you're purchasing through the individual market. Are you purchasing through the individual market, or is this employer-provided coverage?
Click to expand...

(1) Yes, it's individual.
(2) No, I still don't qualify.

See this page. If I make $34,470 a year, I would only get a subsidy on health insurance premiums that are over 9.5% of my income (or $3,274/year).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom