Do liberals not understand the meaning of DEDUCTIBLE?

And how do you know this? You have no idea what plan he was talking about. The cheapest plan I could get also had a $6000 deductible with 60% coverage thereafter. Lets face it, if I had to have this plan, and had a week hospital stay, it would still almost bankrupt me. Obamacare plans are useless for those who are not 100% subsidized.

say whattt??? wrote:

The cheapest plan I could get also had a $6000 deductible with 60% coverage thereafter. Lets face it, if I had to have this plan, and had a week hospital stay, it would still almost bankrupt me. Obamacare plans are useless for those who are not 100% subsidized.

If $9k would bankrupt you, then you certainly must qualify for a subsidy.

Because "Obamacare" isn't an insurance plan, it's a law. The plans are all provided by private insurance companies. Those plans always existed, they're not new.

say whattt??? wrote:

And how do you know this? You have no idea what plan he was talking about.

The cheapest plan I could get also had a $6000 deductible with 60% coverage thereafter. Lets face it, if I had to have this plan, and had a week hospital stay, it would still almost bankrupt me. Obamacare plans are useless for those who are not 100% subsidized.

No Way wrote:

You're right that part of the reason that the ACA is so messed up is because it includes so much compromise.

That said, the insurance plan that the OP is referring to isn't an "Obamacare" plan. It's a plan provided by a private insurance company. These plans have always been available and have always been the cheapest plans.

Yeah... all the affordable plans got taken away.

Its an amazing Cinderella Story really, make it law to have insurance, take away insurance you don't like threatening additional taxes (not fines, see Supreme Court case), extended the deadline and amazing 7.1 million, several of whom haven't paid signed up. Amazing, smh.

wascallywobert wrote:

Its an amazing Cinderella Story really, make it law to have insurance, take away insurance you don't like threatening additional taxes (not fines, see Supreme Court case), extended the deadline and amazing 7.1 million, several of whom haven't paid signed up. Amazing, smh.

I have no problem with that.

No Way wrote:

Because "Obamacare" isn't an insurance plan, it's a law. The plans are all provided by private insurance companies. Those plans always existed, they're not new.

say whattt??? wrote:

And how do you know this? You have no idea what plan he was talking about.

The cheapest plan I could get also had a $6000 deductible with 60% coverage thereafter. Lets face it, if I had to have this plan, and had a week hospital stay, it would still almost bankrupt me. Obamacare plans are useless for those who are not 100% subsidized.

This is incorrect. ACA dictates what must be covered so companies had to modify their plans to conform to ACA. That is why some lost their inexpensive plans and had to switch to a higher premium plan.

dothamath wrote:

say whattt??? wrote:

The cheapest plan I could get also had a $6000 deductible with 60% coverage thereafter. Lets face it, if I had to have this plan, and had a week hospital stay, it would still almost bankrupt me. Obamacare plans are useless for those who are not 100% subsidized.

If $9k would bankrupt you, then you certainly must qualify for a subsidy.

If he runs up $100k in hospital and doctor charges, he is out 6k + 40k. That might not bankrupt him, but it sure would bite

If he runs up $100k in hospital and doctor charges, he is out 6k + 40k. That might not bankrupt him, but it sure would bite[/quote]

$6k + (40% x $94k)

youdothamath wrote:

dothamath wrote:

If $9k would bankrupt you, then you certainly must qualify for a subsidy.

If he runs up $100k in hospital and doctor charges, he is out 6k + 40k. That might not bankrupt him, but it sure would bite

The average cost of an inpatient week in a U.S. hospital is a little north of $11k. So on average he'd be paying between $9k and $10k.

The poster claims that would nearly bankrupt him. In that case, he would almost certainly qualify for a subsidy.

What do you mean by "that is a lot better than unlimited!" Are you implying that is was typical prior to obamacare to have unlimited out of pocket? Sounds like you're another leftist moron who is confidentally ignorant.. We've switched from a system that was burdened by excess govt regulation - and therefore unnecessarily expensive - to one where govt regulation was greatly increased, which is resulting in less choice, higher premiums, & poorer care. You assclowns still don't get it though - nor do I expect you too..[/quote]

______________________________________

Your claim that "excess government regulation" is responsible for high healthcare costs is borderline absurd. Countries in which the government regulates healthcare the most have some of the lowest costs.

Neoliberal enthusiasts like to act as if politically left people are ignorant, but the truth is that free market ideology is exactly that--ideology. There is absolutely no reason to believe that an unregulated market will led to a better society. Unattenuated faith in the free market is no different than religious faith.

Call up Russia and ask how a large country does with statism for their primary form of government. Shoot, that might be hard due to the language barrier. Try calling London and have someone explain to you how street doctors have emerged due to socialized medicine and how it has separated the haves from the have nots.Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it :-)

Sally Vixxxens wrote:

wascallywobert wrote:

Its an amazing Cinderella Story really, make it law to have insurance, take away insurance you don't like threatening additional taxes (not fines, see Supreme Court case), extended the deadline and amazing 7.1 million, several of whom haven't paid signed up. Amazing, smh.

I have no problem with that.

If Obamacare is so wonderful, why can't people opt of Obamacare? If Obamacare is so wonderful you would think that everyone would want it.

wascallywobert wrote:

Call up Russia and ask how a large country does with statism for their primary form of government. Shoot, that might be hard due to the language barrier. Try calling London and have someone explain to you how street doctors have emerged due to socialized medicine and how it has separated the haves from the have nots.

Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it :-)

Sally Vixxxens wrote:

I have no problem with that.

So you're happy with healthcare costs spiraling out of control? Seriously?

Premiums dropped and 12 million more people are insured, yet it is a terrible law? Sounds pretty good. Of course, single payer was the way to go, but politicians in the Senate were unwilling.

All of us are runners here, right? That means we're all much healthier than the general population. Guess what. You're now heavily subsidizing olds, poors, and fats. Congrats!

arunner8484 wrote:

All of us are runners here, right? That means we're all much healthier than the general population. Guess what. You're now heavily subsidizing olds, poors, and fats. Congrats!

How is that any different than before? Do you understand how insurance works?

wascallywobert wrote:

Call up Russia and ask how a large country does with statism for their primary form of government. Shoot, that might be hard due to the language barrier. Try calling London and have someone explain to you how street doctors have emerged due to socialized medicine and how it has separated the haves from the have nots.

Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it :-)

Sally Vixxxens wrote:

I have no problem with that.

And those who don't know shit are bound to shovel it.

Are you seriously going to suggest that all of those countries with single-payer systems which by all objective measures function far better than the US system at half the cost are somehow a mirage?

joho wrote:

It will take another 5 years to see the real impact it has overall on the healthcare system.

And another 50 before it gets changed for something better.

"Better than nothing" isn't good enough. The crap that was pushed through set back real progress for decades.

You are incorrect. My plan through Coventry I have had for years costs me $96 a month with a $5000 dollar deductible. The cheapest plan I my state offered through the healthcare exchanges was $214 with a $6500 deductible and only 60% coverage. This plan was also through Coventry. Many misinformed PSOE like you think the exchange plans were cheaper than non exchange and, and this is not the case for many people.

L L wrote:

What is an Obamacare plan?

I thought Obamacare was an expression used for Obama's healthcare law.

The law says you must attain healthcare insurance.

You can use your employer's plan, find your own plan or use the new exchanges that have been set up.

Anything within those guidelines is Obamacare.

My plan is less expensive than the plan mentioned by the OP.

So the OP's mentioned plan is not the least expensive plan through Obamacare.

Understand?