• 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.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

Unabogie said:
And thus the central premise of the law -- that people who lose their jobs or benefits can still buy insurance on their own at reasonable prices with no preexisting conditions, and that this new insurance meet minimum standards and contain no arbitrary limits and bans the practice of rescission -- is fulfilled.

Our experience was similar to yours. We found cheaper insurance than what I had before, and didn't have to answer a single question about our health.
Click to expand...

+1. To be honest, it's almost the opposite of sticker shock. We get the COBRA quote of $1,150 a month, and then see the prices on the exchange. Good stuff. My middle child has diabetes, it was pretty nice not to have to answer a myriad of questions about it.
 
gnome said:
With more insurance companies joining, does this create a potential for price competition? Or does it not work that way?
Click to expand...

That's supposedly the intent of the market place system implemented by the law. So that people are able to view the rates side by side and more easily make a decision that suits them financially. From what I experienced when I signed up that seems to have worked out. Seeing as I haven't used it yet for anything I haven't got much to say about the actual effectiveness of the coverage or if the competition translated into anything. Not that I want to have to use it any time soon....

The only thing I have complaints about still for now is that I'm sort of boxed into being required to by it when I don't feel that I'm financially stable enough, or necessarily in immediate need to have it. That whole "either pay for coverage, or pay for nothing" thing.
 
I don't see it quite as paying for nothing, but as paying for something you didn't have before, which is the ability to enter the market unconditionally.

Whether that's worth it is of course a matter of opinion, but I would hold that up against the pre-existing condition/unemployment/COBRA trap any day.
 
gnome said:
I don't see it quite as paying for nothing, but as paying for something you didn't have before, which is the ability to enter the market unconditionally.

Whether that's worth it is of course a matter of opinion, but I would hold that up against the pre-existing condition/unemployment/COBRA trap any day.
Click to expand...

I find the plan I have to be affordable compared to my choices with COBRA and similar, but it's still tight because of a few factors:

- I'm playing safe with the subsidy. I accepted half of it because my yearly income this year will be more than last year's and I don't want to be in a position where I have unexpected due's to the IRS to repay overages when tax time comes next April. I might get a refund instead, but I decided it best to go the middle road and take the immediate cost hit rather than worry about whether or not I might take a big hit at tax day.

- The cost of living here is high and my wage currently doesn't allow me to live on my own. I'm still partially dependent financially and live with my parent.

The position I'm put in by the law is essentially... get the health insurance and pay the extra $$$ per month to have it, vs opting out of it and essentially being penalized and paying for something I wasn't consciously opted into. If that clarifies what I'm saying...

Bottom line is that the law's requirements do lower the ceiling for me, but existing factors with my income and living expenses weren't helped by them either. The health care stuff is not the only expense increase I can ever face, but in this particular time frame it happens to set me back.
 
Last edited:
That aspect definitely needs some improvement... how to coordinate subsidies with variable or uncertain income.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I find the plan I have to be affordable compared to my choices with COBRA and similar, but it's still tight because of a few factors:

- I'm playing safe with the subsidy. I accepted half of it because my yearly income this year will be more than last year's and I don't want to be in a position where I have unexpected due's to the IRS to repay overages when tax time comes next April. I might get a refund instead, but I decided it best to go the middle road and take the immediate cost hit rather than worry about whether or not I might take a big hit at tax day.

- The cost of living here is high and my wage currently doesn't allow me to live on my own. I'm still partially dependent financially and live with my parent.

The position I'm put in by the law is essentially... get the health insurance and pay the extra $$$ per month to have it, vs opting out of it and essentially being penalized and paying for something I wasn't consciously opted into. If that clarifies what I'm saying...

Bottom line is that the law's requirements do lower the ceiling for me, but existing factors with my income and living expenses weren't helped by them either. The health care stuff is not the only expense increase I can ever face, but in this particular time frame it happens to set me back.
Click to expand...

Then again, imagine how much a trip to the emergency room would set you back. A little ways back, someone I know was riding his bike home from work when a driver ran him off the road. He fell, shattering his facial bones, and had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. He's a young, health guy like you are, and since this was pre-ACA he was uninsured.

Everyone should realize that they're one inattentive driver away from a trip to the ER, and if you're not covered, then everyone else has to foot your bill.

I'd agree with you, though, that the people with variable income need more guidance, and I'd also suggest that the subsidies need to be higher.
 
Nice anecdote about the bicycle rider.

Of course, one must balance that with similar healthy young people who just pay and pay and pay their premiums every month and, being healthy and avoiding accidents, never use their coverage. After a decade, they could have a nice little bankroll stashed to cover an eventual health or accident claim.

Not saying having health insurance might not be a wise choice.

Operative word?

"Choice".

Or at least it used to be.

Just occurred it me how some will make a big deal about a woman's "right to choose" an abortion, but not her "right to choose" to go uninsured.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Nice anecdote about the bicycle rider.

Of course, one must balance that with similar healthy young people who just pay and pay and pay their premiums every month and, being healthy and avoiding accidents, never use their coverage. After a decade, they could have a nice little bankroll stashed to cover an eventual health or accident claim.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand how insurance works.

That which you describe above is what insurance is for. Low probablility, high cost events that no one (non-rich) person can afford on their own. Pooling of risk means that everyone pays a a portion and the money's there in the pot when it's needed with the insurance company taking a little off the top for paperwork and stuff.


What happens above with your youth who doesn't believe he will ever have an accident, even when the probability is non-zero, is that you now still have the same level of risk, less money in the pool (therefore highr premiums for everyone else) and an uninsured individual wandering around waiting to cost everybody else a fortune because they're unisured and got run over.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I really kind of do know how insurance works.
Click to expand...

I may have a misaprehension of your position, my apologies if I have. However, if I don't...


Okay, so if you understand how insurance works, how are you justifying taking a non-zero risk individual out of the pool just because they believe, incorrectly, that they are invulnerable.

At that point you just end up with what you had before. If you allow people to go uninsured then, when they get sick, either everyone else pays for them or you let them die.

I really can't see how, if you understand how a risk pool functions, you can advocate anyone being allowed to voluntarily remove themselves from the pool under the erroneous assumption that they won't need medical care.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Operative word?

"Choice".

Or at least it used to be.

Just occurred it me how some will make a big deal about a woman's "right to choose" an abortion, but not her "right to choose" to go uninsured.
Click to expand...

A woman choosing abortion affects you exactly how? While on the other hand, 50 million Americans going uninsured affects everyone. Sorry, this analogy needs work.
 
3point14 said:
I really can't see how, if you understand how a risk pool functions, you can advocate anyone being allowed to voluntarily remove themselves from the pool under the erroneous assumption that they won't need medical care.
Click to expand...

For this country's entire history, our citizens had the option to buy health insurance, or not - voluntarily.

Join a risk pool or not - voluntarily.

For better or worse, there's now no choice in the matter - citizens are forced to buy coverage or be penalized/taxed.

Just stating the obvious.

Oh, and I would prefer single-payer over either what we had, or this bastardization of government compulsion to purchase private insurance.
 
3point14 said:
How's that working out for you?
Click to expand...

Personally?

If you've been following the thread, just fine, thanks.

Affordable premiums to buy high deductible coverage year after year and saving a ton of money. Accepting the risk of high future out-of-pocket expenditures, in order to have more current funds available for both investment and discretionary spending.

IOW, choosing the coverage that suits our needs.

Thanks for asking, though.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
For this country's entire history, our citizens had the option to buy health insurance, or not - voluntarily.

Join a risk pool or not - voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. There were large numbers of people who could not voluntarily join a risk pool. They were born with pre-existing conditions (sometimes extremely minor) and couldn't even get coverage for injuries.
 
Unabogie said:
Then again, imagine how much a trip to the emergency room would set you back. A little ways back, someone I know was riding his bike home from work when a driver ran him off the road. He fell, shattering his facial bones, and had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. He's a young, health guy like you are, and since this was pre-ACA he was uninsured.
Click to expand...
My friend was in a car accident earlier this year and his bill for a day and half long stay at the hospital was a cool $90k. (No insurance). He was lucky enough to have the majority of that written off as a charity but I get the point. I'm single with no dependent so my financial decisions as far as healthcare are concerned before having to register under the ACA's policies were my own fully aware of the risk that I might have to deal with the cost burden of a hospital stay. I would probably think differently if family coverage was at play but that's not my current situation.

Unabogie said:
I'd agree with you, though, that the people with variable income need more guidance, and I'd also suggest that the subsidies need to be higher.
Click to expand...
They really need to be more flexible because from what I saw the subsidy is determined directly by your estimated or actual income... not by range of income. Maybe there was good reason for doing that but I feel it complicates life to have to worry whether or not you're using more than you qualify for. If you don't know what you're going to make accurately then that subsidy may or may not change. In my case the full subsidy would have covered me just fine, but uncertainties about the final dollar number led me to decide on doing it partial and either getting the refund later or breaking even if my subsidy lowered. So I have my quirks with the financial impact that I bring up but won't know the full impact until probably next year whether it's good or bad.
 
3point14 said:
I may have a misaprehension of your position, my apologies if I have. However, if I don't...


Okay, so if you understand how insurance works, how are you justifying taking a non-zero risk individual out of the pool just because they believe, incorrectly, that they are invulnerable.

At that point you just end up with what you had before. If you allow people to go uninsured then, when they get sick, either everyone else pays for them or you let them die.I really can't see how, if you understand how a risk pool functions, you can advocate anyone being allowed to voluntarily remove themselves from the pool under the erroneous assumption that they won't need medical care.
Click to expand...

Or god forbid, they pay for their own required care. No wonder you don't understand Eddie's point.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Or god forbid, they pay for their own required care. No wonder you don't understand Eddie's point.
Click to expand...

You assume that they can pay for it. If they can't afford the bill, who do you think is going to make up for it? That cost is going to be shifted to the people that can afford to pay.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Personally?

If you've been following the thread, just fine, thanks.

Affordable premiums to buy high deductible coverage year after year and saving a ton of money. Accepting the risk of high future out-of-pocket expenditures, in order to have more current funds available for both investment and discretionary spending.

IOW, choosing the coverage that suits our needs.

Thanks for asking, though.
Click to expand...


When I asked, I meant for the whole country, not for yourself. Allow me to rephrase in the hope of you being unable to flippantly dodge the crux of the matter this time:

How's that working out for your country?

I do appreciate the 'I'm alright, Jack' defence, heard it a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom