"you also forgot to account for the 3.8% surcharge that some of us have to pay on income above $200,000. that nifty new surcharge massively will increase your numbers."
LOL, poor, broke $200k dude.
"you also forgot to account for the 3.8% surcharge that some of us have to pay on income above $200,000. that nifty new surcharge massively will increase your numbers."
LOL, poor, broke $200k dude.
The ACA is based on Romneycare. Yup, the ACA is a based on a Republican program.
nifty fifty wrote:
your quick calculation doesn't account for the fact that increases this year and next year (and all years going forward with obamacare) also come with much WORSE coverage. higher deductibles, less procedures covered, less doctors covered, less hospitals covered, higher costs for drugs, etc.
also, some of us saw MUCH higher increases. mine was +34% this year and looks like it will be around +10% this year and that is for much worse coverage.
you also forgot to account for the 3.8% surcharge that some of us have to pay on income above $200,000. that nifty new surcharge massively will increase your numbers.
Can you provide a link to some data on the "much WORSE coverage". My coverage hasn't changed at all. Forbes is a pretty good publication. If they had a study comparing costs over years, you would think they would attempt to compare similar insurance plans.
Extra fund raising needed to support ACORN-Americans and illegals.
Schwartzehonky wrote:
You're a liar.Everyone I know says theirs gone down.
I notice you gopers don't talk about the economy
anymore since you've lost that argument.
The economy is trash, ObamaCare is trash, Obama's foreign policies are trash, that's why Obama and you liberals are reduced to race hate mongering over various thugs who getted killed resisting/assaulting police.
The economy is trash,
- The DJI is at a record high. On the way to 18,000.
ObamaCare is trash,
- He dresses as well as Repub Boehner, but Boehner's golf is much, much better. Playing more golf makes you a better player.
Obama's foreign policies are trash,
- Repubs want to close the doors to everyone. In other words, no foreign policy at all.
that's why Obama and you liberals are reduced to race hate mongering over various thugs who getted killed resisting/assaulting police.
- Hmmm, sounds like what Repub stalwarts S. Hannity and R. Limbaugh would say.
Tinfoil Hat wrote:
My loser brother-in-law pays virtually nothing in federal income tax due to having the writeoffs (kids). Of course he and his family use far more services that I do and pay nothing for them. And he complains bitterly about Obamacare raising "his" taxes.
You should be pleased your brother-in-law is taking the burden of raising the next generation for you. If he is a decent parent then he is educating your future nurse that will have to wipe your butt when you are too old and decrepit to do it yourself. Without those children being raised to be productive members of society, no one will be around to work for you when you can't do anything for yourself.
People need to think broader. Humans by nature are a social species. Since the dawn of time, groups of humans have taken care of each other to ensure the survival and health of all. That is why our dominion over this world is so complete.
Marley will be visiting you Christmas Eve.
A FFS structure is our system and has been forever - America proved in the 1990's that capitated reimbursement and HMOs wouldn't work due to the desire for consumer choice and control. Insurance companies are an independent 3rd party claims payer and administrator just like they are for Medicaid and Medicare; except without all of the financial abuse. Profitability has been reduced by the MLR targets of 80 & 85% forcing the insurers to provide consumer rebates. Broker commissions and employed headcounts have been slashed to make room for these MLRs. Demand is changing and won't be fully understood until the Medicare reimbursements kick in next year along with the numerous taxes on employers and the uninsured. As for the rest of your answer, the ACA isn't about reducing cost of health care and the drivers which are increased age of consumers; technology (MRI, robotic surgery, joint replacement, etc); drugs for everything (HBP, cholesterol, asthma, arthritis, inflammation, viagra, etc); chronic diseases that we can now live with (obesity, diabetes, HIV, asthma, etc) and state and federally mandated benefits (mental health/substance abuse, autism, sex change, any willing provider, conception & maternity, etc). Health care rationing is the only way to reduce cost at this point now that we've gone too far with the ACA; Americans are not willing to change habits; doctors and lawyers aren't going to quite over-treating every sniffle because of lawsuits and pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers make too much money to stop. This is only about $ and gov't control, otherwise we wouldn't need rebates to make it palatable for the masses. So we still have a FFS structure (enormously inefficient by nature)...with a middle man involved in every transaction (also outrageously inefficient)...while insurance companies' profits go unscathed...while both individual demand and the demand curve itself have been moved to the right...and we subsidize mainly based on income, regardless of health risk level......and some of you really don't believe that premiums and deductables (even worse!) are significantly rising? Regardless of if employers are passing more of the cost on to consumers more or not, the root causes (see my questions above) of the actual COST of care resulting from this idiotic system have not been addressed. Employers aren't "paying less" in nominal terms; they're paying less in real terms because ultimately the true cost of care has not been addressed.We've been duped.
Friedman dude wrote:
Did the ACA dismantle the Fee-For-Service health care structure in the US? No.
Did the ACA stop the insurance industry from needlessly being involved in every single transaction between producer and consumer? No, they are even more embedded than ever.
Did the ACA hurt the profitability of the insurance industry (especially since they were often the villian in Obama's campaign)? No, they're thriving.
Did the ACA reduce the demand for health care in any meaningful way? No, it greatly increases demand for care.
So we still have a FFS structure (enormously inefficient by nature)...with a middle man involved in every transaction (also outrageously inefficient)...while insurance companies' profits go unscathed...while both individual demand and the demand curve itself have been moved to the right...and we subsidize mainly based on income, regardless of health risk level...
...and some of you really don't believe that premiums and deductables (even worse!) are significantly rising? Regardless of if employers are passing more of the cost on to consumers more or not, the root causes (see my questions above) of the actual COST of care resulting from this idiotic system have not been addressed. Employers aren't "paying less" in nominal terms; they're paying less in real terms because ultimately the true cost of care has not been addressed.
We've been duped.
except you forgot to add that it was entirely funded by the Feds due to a loophole and Romney negotiations to keep the millions by paying for health care. Their system isn't financially better off because of it.
Three for the show wrote:
According to Obama they were supposed to go down.
They went way down for people in certain socio-economic classes. They went way up for people in one socio-economic class.
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
nifty fifty wrote:your quick calculation doesn't account for the fact that increases this year and next year (and all years going forward with obamacare) also come with much WORSE coverage. higher deductibles, less procedures covered, less doctors covered, less hospitals covered, higher costs for drugs, etc.
also, some of us saw MUCH higher increases. mine was +34% this year and looks like it will be around +10% this year and that is for much worse coverage.
you also forgot to account for the 3.8% surcharge that some of us have to pay on income above $200,000. that nifty new surcharge massively will increase your numbers.
Can you provide a link to some data on the "much WORSE coverage". My coverage hasn't changed at all. Forbes is a pretty good publication. If they had a study comparing costs over years, you would think they would attempt to compare similar insurance plans.
How do you know your coverage hasn't changed "at all"? There are a lot of doctors who used to take my insurance who don't as of 2014. Something tells me that you didn't check the 1000s of doctors who took your insurance in 2013 and compared that list to 2014. Also, I am calling BS on your insurance not changing "at all" because I find it very unlikely that it was completely compliant with the ACA's mandatory requirements. It really covered dental and eyes for children? My didn't but now i have that coverage (and am paying for it) even though I don't have any kids and don't want that coverage.
I just told you how the comparison is garbage. Simply looking at premiums paid year-over-year is missing out on a LOT of extra money paid for health insurance. I'm assuming you don't know anything about the 3.8% surcharge but for those of us making more than $200K, it's substantial. Someone making $1 million now has to pay an extra $30,400 on health insurance that your wonderful Forbes article ignores.
Whether the people who are naively supporting aca care about anecdotal evidence or not, I'm just a middle class guy with a family of 3 and my premium went from 750/month to over 1000/month in the course of a year. And that's with my employer raising their contribution to offset it.
I have a feeling anyone still supporting aca doesn't pay for their own, because this is the same scenario across the board with people I know.
Bingo! Since POTUS is so big on transparency, anyone with Obamacare bought through an exchange AND receiving a subsidy needs to look at the gross price and not the net monthly premium they're paying. Hopefully the subsidies will go away soon and then let's see how much support this klusterphuq has from the people. And while you're examining that, take a look at the $3000 tax break that employers will get for each illegal hire of an undocumented worker who isn't required to have Ocare like the rest of us. Employers will now decide to either hire a legal American who is required to have insurance or hire an illegal and get a tax break..........
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
nifty fifty wrote:your quick calculation doesn't account for the fact that increases this year and next year (and all years going forward with obamacare) also come with much WORSE coverage. higher deductibles, less procedures covered, less doctors covered, less hospitals covered, higher costs for drugs, etc.
also, some of us saw MUCH higher increases. mine was +34% this year and looks like it will be around +10% this year and that is for much worse coverage.
you also forgot to account for the 3.8% surcharge that some of us have to pay on income above $200,000. that nifty new surcharge massively will increase your numbers.
Can you provide a link to some data on the "much WORSE coverage". My coverage hasn't changed at all. Forbes is a pretty good publication. If they had a study comparing costs over years, you would think they would attempt to compare similar insurance plans.
Nah...I just made that up to make a point. It could be true. That's what Rush says.
Are you on the exchange? If not, it's all about your employer.
I'm new to the exchange, my employer dropped that benefit this year and we all have to join the exchange. Premiums are lower, but I can't keep any of my doctors and the deductables are higher. It's pretty much a wash for us. Other guys in the office without kids love it. The one's with kids who hit our deductables every year would rather not go through the hassle, but it was great for our employer. Our doctors don't accept any of the programs on the exchange even though I'm still with Anthem. Bummer, we loved our pediatrician.
If your insurance tripled, then it's pretty much the fault of you and/or your employer for not switching to a different plan.
You know when Romney ran against Obama before the ACA passed, Romney admitted it didn't work but the democrats pushed it through anyway.
Romneycare wrote:
The ACA is based on Romneycare. Yup, the ACA is a based on a Republican program.
So, if someone had a plan that he/she liked and then was told that it will triple in price to comply with the ACA, then it's that person's fault??? Yeah right.
I think the only people still supporting the ACA are either ones that are getting something for free or the same clueless people who bought Obama's lies hook, line and sinker about how great the ACA will be. You know, the ones about how premiums will be lower, more people will be covered, you can keep your doctor, deductibles won't go up, etc. Apparently there still are plenty of clueless people out there who still fall for the lies.
runn wrote:
Two possibilities:
1. You're full of crap
2. You're a troll
Mine haven't changed, Obamacare will bring them down not raise them.
One possibility:
your premium is "subsidized", meaning you're only paying a fraction of it - the part that 'hasn't changed' - while your non-mooching fellow taxpayers are paying the rest.
Clown..