I Just Canceled My Free Obamacare ...

Gern Blansten

benjs said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm thankful to make decent money but I would not hesitate to give them proof of my income if I could get a subsidy for my family (wife and four kids)....I pay about $1,200/month plus $10K deductible.

Benjs....this isn't government healthcare, they just provide subsidies for lower income folks to pay premiums. 100% subsidy is fucking wonderful and is exactly why the ACA was needed.

Gern, thanks for filling me in - I didn't realize that Obamacare was implemented through health insurance providers. My Canadian head has trouble wrapping its head around this notion sometimes

I wish we could do what Canada has done... we are too damn stupid

hedonist

To our Canadian friends - Is there any substance to claims I've heard that some needed procedures are delayed for a long while until approved?

oftenreading

On the face of it, I would say "no", but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "approved". It's not like there is some board reviewing applications and approving or denying them. There may be shorter or longer wait lists for surgeries, depending on the type of surgery, the availability of surgeons, and of course how urgent the surgery is. If something is an emergency or urgent, you would get the procedure very quickly in hospital. Something minor or elective can take quite a while. Someone I know wanted to get a surgery on an arthritic toe joint because it was stiff. Not an emergency by any means, nor something that should take a surgeon's time when he or she could be replacing hips or fixing complicated fractures. He waited almost two years for the surgery, got it (and everything related to it) done at no cost to him, and is happy with the result. Another friend is waiting almost a year for surgery on his back BUT that is because the medical recommendation is to wait that long before operating, because a good proportion improve without surgery, and spinal surgery carries significant risks. He's not happy about having to wait, but he understands the reasons for it. Of course, the specialists aren't evenly divided throughout the country, so in some areas people wait longer than others.

There are probably a lot of other factors, but that should be the quick version.

CM189191

hedonist said:

To our Canadian friends - Is there any substance to claims I've heard that some needed procedures are delayed for a long while until approved?

We're too eager to cut people open here in the US anyways....
...surgeons don't get paid not to do surgery

hedonist

oftenreading said:

On the face of it, I would say "no", but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "approved". It's not like there is some board reviewing applications and approving or denying them. There may be shorter or longer wait lists for surgeries, depending on the type of surgery, the availability of surgeons, and of course how urgent the surgery is. If something is an emergency or urgent, you would get the procedure very quickly in hospital. Something minor or elective can take quite a while. Someone I know wanted to get a surgery on an arthritic toe joint because it was stiff. Not an emergency by any means, nor something that should take a surgeon's time when he or she could be replacing hips or fixing complicated fractures. He waited almost two years for the surgery, got it (and everything related to it) done at no cost to him, and is happy with the result. Another friend is waiting almost a year for surgery on his back BUT that is because the medical recommendation is to wait that long before operating, because a good proportion improve without surgery, and spinal surgery carries significant risks. He's not happy about having to wait, but he understands the reasons for it. Of course, the specialists aren't evenly divided throughout the country, so in some areas people wait longer than others.

There are probably a lot of other factors, but that should be the quick version.

Thank you. I should've used a better term than "approved" - was thinking more along the lines of wait times for non-urgent treatment, as you addressed.

benjs

oftenreading said:

On the face of it, I would say "no", but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "approved". It's not like there is some board reviewing applications and approving or denying them. There may be shorter or longer wait lists for surgeries, depending on the type of surgery, the availability of surgeons, and of course how urgent the surgery is. If something is an emergency or urgent, you would get the procedure very quickly in hospital. Something minor or elective can take quite a while. Someone I know wanted to get a surgery on an arthritic toe joint because it was stiff. Not an emergency by any means, nor something that should take a surgeon's time when he or she could be replacing hips or fixing complicated fractures. He waited almost two years for the surgery, got it (and everything related to it) done at no cost to him, and is happy with the result. Another friend is waiting almost a year for surgery on his back BUT that is because the medical recommendation is to wait that long before operating, because a good proportion improve without surgery, and spinal surgery carries significant risks. He's not happy about having to wait, but he understands the reasons for it. Of course, the specialists aren't evenly divided throughout the country, so in some areas people wait longer than others.

There are probably a lot of other factors, but that should be the quick version.

This is a good explanation of a deficiency of our system. Another is the salary cap: after a certain point, doctors are not monetarily rewarded for further work, hence they have the option of working additional hours for free. This was less of an issue when our major metropolitan cities such as Toronto and Vancouver were smaller and the ratio of available doctors to demanding citizens was better, but just within my lifetime I've seen several walk-in clinics converted into appointment-only locations, and those go from a 1-2 day required notice to sometimes 2-3 weeks' wait. In addition to this, I've witnessed an average check-up time decrease from 30 minutes with no sense of urgency and with you holding a real relationship with a doctor who knows your name, history, and cares about you and your family, to an average of 10-15 minutes with the doctor watching the clock at a place where doctors read your history five minutes prior to the appointment and don't really entirely remember who you are. In addition to the amount of available time doctors have for you, there is certainly complacency within the industry as a result of this, because why do more work than you have to?

Godfather.

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

oftenreading

hedonist said:

oftenreading said:

On the face of it, I would say "no", but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "approved". It's not like there is some board reviewing applications and approving or denying them. There may be shorter or longer wait lists for surgeries, depending on the type of surgery, the availability of surgeons, and of course how urgent the surgery is. If something is an emergency or urgent, you would get the procedure very quickly in hospital. Something minor or elective can take quite a while. Someone I know wanted to get a surgery on an arthritic toe joint because it was stiff. Not an emergency by any means, nor something that should take a surgeon's time when he or she could be replacing hips or fixing complicated fractures. He waited almost two years for the surgery, got it (and everything related to it) done at no cost to him, and is happy with the result. Another friend is waiting almost a year for surgery on his back BUT that is because the medical recommendation is to wait that long before operating, because a good proportion improve without surgery, and spinal surgery carries significant risks. He's not happy about having to wait, but he understands the reasons for it. Of course, the specialists aren't evenly divided throughout the country, so in some areas people wait longer than others.

There are probably a lot of other factors, but that should be the quick version.

Thank you. I should've used a better term than "approved" - was thinking more along the lines of wait times for non-urgent treatment, as you addressed.

One issue is the grey area of procedures that are not life-saving, but are life-enhancing. Some people waiting for elective knee replacement surgery, for instance, seem to wait a long time (others don't, and who knows why? squeaky wheels?). They are still going about their business day to day, but quality of life is less than it could be.

oftenreading

benjs said:

oftenreading said:

On the face of it, I would say "no", but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "approved". It's not like there is some board reviewing applications and approving or denying them. There may be shorter or longer wait lists for surgeries, depending on the type of surgery, the availability of surgeons, and of course how urgent the surgery is. If something is an emergency or urgent, you would get the procedure very quickly in hospital. Something minor or elective can take quite a while. Someone I know wanted to get a surgery on an arthritic toe joint because it was stiff. Not an emergency by any means, nor something that should take a surgeon's time when he or she could be replacing hips or fixing complicated fractures. He waited almost two years for the surgery, got it (and everything related to it) done at no cost to him, and is happy with the result. Another friend is waiting almost a year for surgery on his back BUT that is because the medical recommendation is to wait that long before operating, because a good proportion improve without surgery, and spinal surgery carries significant risks. He's not happy about having to wait, but he understands the reasons for it. Of course, the specialists aren't evenly divided throughout the country, so in some areas people wait longer than others.

There are probably a lot of other factors, but that should be the quick version.

This is a good explanation of a deficiency of our system. Another is the salary cap: after a certain point, doctors are not monetarily rewarded for further work, hence they have the option of working additional hours for free. This was less of an issue when our major metropolitan cities such as Toronto and Vancouver were smaller and the ratio of available doctors to demanding citizens was better, but just within my lifetime I've seen several walk-in clinics converted into appointment-only locations, and those go from a 1-2 day required notice to sometimes 2-3 weeks' wait. In addition to this, I've witnessed an average check-up time decrease from 30 minutes with no sense of urgency and with you holding a real relationship with a doctor who knows your name, history, and cares about you and your family, to an average of 10-15 minutes with the doctor watching the clock at a place where doctors read your history five minutes prior to the appointment and don't really entirely remember who you are. In addition to the amount of available time doctors have for you, there is certainly complacency within the industry as a result of this, because why do more work than you have to?

I'm guessing you are in Ontario, benjis? In BC, the opposite seems to be true - more "by appointment" clinics are moving to a "walk-in" model (unless I misunderstood what you were writing). They simply don't have to bother with appointments, since they get all the business they need with walk-ins. It means you can get in to see someone on that day if you want to, but yes, you don't necessarily see who you want to see (although even at the walk-ins you can, of course, ask when Dr. X is working and come in then).

MayDay10

Best wishes to the OP.

Obamacare/ACA is/was a hastily and poorly conceived "fix" for our nation's healthcare problems. It needs a lot of work, if not, scrapped for Universal/single payer.

benjs

Godfather. said:

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

Godfather,

I would estimate that almost any policy could be determined to prefer one part of society over another (whether by cultural, economic, religious, or age division). That expression that you can't make all the people happy all the time certainly holds true - and even more so when your audience/participants number in the hundreds of millions.

Also, you say that this is "just the start" of the coverage program - what do you anticipate the next step will be?

Finally, your comment about the government's desires... The more you work, the more the government wants from you. Yes, and? This has been the case for quite a while now in Canada (and I assume the States) with tax brackets which differ based on your income range, typically more sensitive to lower income persons.

Could it be that a binary perspective of "Obamacare = good/bad" is an oversimplification of the problem? It seems to me that subsidized health care for lower income persons is a great idea - but if the government is going to penalize people for opting out - the onus is on them to make it an inherently frictionless process, designed for their target users (i.e. lower income persons without the time or effort to put into claiming the subsidy). From what the OP has stated, that seems to be the point of failure. I personally can't understand why this isn't simply tied into the filing of income taxes, but I would expect that's due to the limitations of a bureaucracy (whether it's run well or not).

benjs

oftenreading said:

benjs said:

oftenreading said:

On the face of it, I would say "no", but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "approved". It's not like there is some board reviewing applications and approving or denying them. There may be shorter or longer wait lists for surgeries, depending on the type of surgery, the availability of surgeons, and of course how urgent the surgery is. If something is an emergency or urgent, you would get the procedure very quickly in hospital. Something minor or elective can take quite a while. Someone I know wanted to get a surgery on an arthritic toe joint because it was stiff. Not an emergency by any means, nor something that should take a surgeon's time when he or she could be replacing hips or fixing complicated fractures. He waited almost two years for the surgery, got it (and everything related to it) done at no cost to him, and is happy with the result. Another friend is waiting almost a year for surgery on his back BUT that is because the medical recommendation is to wait that long before operating, because a good proportion improve without surgery, and spinal surgery carries significant risks. He's not happy about having to wait, but he understands the reasons for it. Of course, the specialists aren't evenly divided throughout the country, so in some areas people wait longer than others.

There are probably a lot of other factors, but that should be the quick version.

This is a good explanation of a deficiency of our system. Another is the salary cap: after a certain point, doctors are not monetarily rewarded for further work, hence they have the option of working additional hours for free. This was less of an issue when our major metropolitan cities such as Toronto and Vancouver were smaller and the ratio of available doctors to demanding citizens was better, but just within my lifetime I've seen several walk-in clinics converted into appointment-only locations, and those go from a 1-2 day required notice to sometimes 2-3 weeks' wait. In addition to this, I've witnessed an average check-up time decrease from 30 minutes with no sense of urgency and with you holding a real relationship with a doctor who knows your name, history, and cares about you and your family, to an average of 10-15 minutes with the doctor watching the clock at a place where doctors read your history five minutes prior to the appointment and don't really entirely remember who you are. In addition to the amount of available time doctors have for you, there is certainly complacency within the industry as a result of this, because why do more work than you have to?

I'm guessing you are in Ontario, benjis? In BC, the opposite seems to be true - more "by appointment" clinics are moving to a "walk-in" model (unless I misunderstood what you were writing). They simply don't have to bother with appointments, since they get all the business they need with walk-ins. It means you can get in to see someone on that day if you want to, but yes, you don't necessarily see who you want to see (although even at the walk-ins you can, of course, ask when Dr. X is working and come in then).

Interesting! I am in Ontario, and I wouldn't have anticipated that. My clinic, for example, has four doctors in it. It started out entirely walk-in, and when the line-ups became absurdly long, they moved to primarily appointments. Now, I'm not sure if they do walk-ins at all - I live within walking distance of it and would still not show up without an appointment because of how long it would take to get in (2-3 hours minimum).

DriftingByTheStorm

godfather, agree with your sentiments generally, and appreciate ya. The government has turned in to a gross perversion of itself as of late.

benjs said:

It seems to me that subsidized health care for lower income persons is a great idea - but if the government is going to penalize people for opting out - the onus is on them to make it an inherently frictionless process, designed for their target users (i.e. lower income persons without the time or effort to put into claiming the subsidy). From what the OP has stated, that seems to be the point of failure. I personally can't understand why this isn't simply tied into the filing of income taxes, but I would expect that's due to the limitations of a bureaucracy (whether it's run well or not).

Minus that first sentence which I VEHEMENENTLY disagree with, you hit the nail on the head Benj. Though I personally have learned "there is no such thing as a free lunch" and abhor the idea of our dead broke gubermint trying to make itself the free lunch provider par excellence, I do feel like if we are going to do this we should at least feign an attempt at making it actually serve those it claims to be created for. Your inability to grasp why it isn't simply tied to most recent tax return is EXACTLY my gripe. The notion of proving income FORWARD for an unfinished year is absolutely FUCKED and does nothing to increase the accuracy of their program. All it does is make it much more complicated for anyone working multiple jobs or who is self employed (or like me who is both self employed AND working TWO other jobs) ... It is a broken and FUCKED model and I would rathe go uninsured for a 13th year running than even attempt to jump through them high hoops there.

Absolutely pathetic.

Gern Blansten

Godfather. said:

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

This really makes no sense at all. The OP should be pretty damn happy that he was able to be covered for basically nothing. If he would have developed cancer or some other horrible illness I can't imagine he would be doing anything but singing the ACA's praises.

I make too much to get subsidies so my premiums/coverage really hasn't changed. It's a fact that premiums have stopped increasing at the same rate that they used to increase at. For years I expected 20-25% annual increases. That changed as soon as the ACA was being discussed because insurance companies knew there was going to be more scrutiny.

benjs

DriftingByTheStorm said:

godfather, agree with your sentiments generally, and appreciate ya. The government has turned in to a gross perversion of itself as of late.

benjs said:

It seems to me that subsidized health care for lower income persons is a great idea - but if the government is going to penalize people for opting out - the onus is on them to make it an inherently frictionless process, designed for their target users (i.e. lower income persons without the time or effort to put into claiming the subsidy). From what the OP has stated, that seems to be the point of failure. I personally can't understand why this isn't simply tied into the filing of income taxes, but I would expect that's due to the limitations of a bureaucracy (whether it's run well or not).

Minus that first sentence which I VEHEMENENTLY disagree with, you hit the nail on the head Benj. Though I personally have learned "there is no such thing as a free lunch" and abhor the idea of our dead broke gubermint trying to make itself the free lunch provider par excellence, I do feel like if we are going to do this we should at least feign an attempt at making it actually serve those it claims to be created for. Your inability to grasp why it isn't simply tied to most recent tax return is EXACTLY my gripe. The notion of proving income FORWARD for an unfinished year is absolutely FUCKED and does nothing to increase the accuracy of their program. All it does is make it much more complicated for anyone working multiple jobs or who is self employed (or like me who is both self employed AND working TWO other jobs) ... It is a broken and FUCKED model and I would rathe go uninsured for a 13th year running than even attempt to jump through them high hoops there.

Absolutely pathetic.

Drifting, we're in complete agreement about the latter part of your statement: proving income looking forward, for low-to-mid income citizens, is just plain idiotic, given the nature of payment for said jobs.

I'm curious to hear more about the part you vehemently disagree with though, I'm not sure which part you were referring to, and I'd love to hear your reasons why.

benjs

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

This really makes no sense at all. The OP should be pretty damn happy that he was able to be covered for basically nothing. If he would have developed cancer or some other horrible illness I can't imagine he would be doing anything but singing the ACA's praises.

I make too much to get subsidies so my premiums/coverage really hasn't changed. It's a fact that premiums have stopped increasing at the same rate that they used to increase at. For years I expected 20-25% annual increases. That changed as soon as the ACA was being discussed because insurance companies knew there was going to be more scrutiny.

Gern, if the cost was "basically nothing", then I would agree with you. But, as the OP said (and he comes from the affected demographic and should know better than you or me), this isn't "free": it comes attached to a time and effort cost that causes him frustration stemming from a frictional process.

As for your second paragraph, again, forgive my ignorance in regards to health insurance providers and the way they function, but that's a fascinating and inherently positive byproduct of ACA.

Gern Blansten

benjs said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

This really makes no sense at all. The OP should be pretty damn happy that he was able to be covered for basically nothing. If he would have developed cancer or some other horrible illness I can't imagine he would be doing anything but singing the ACA's praises.

I make too much to get subsidies so my premiums/coverage really hasn't changed. It's a fact that premiums have stopped increasing at the same rate that they used to increase at. For years I expected 20-25% annual increases. That changed as soon as the ACA was being discussed because insurance companies knew there was going to be more scrutiny.

Gern, if the cost was "basically nothing", then I would agree with you. But, as the OP said (and he comes from the affected demographic and should know better than you or me), this isn't "free": it comes attached to a time and effort cost that causes him frustration stemming from a frictional process.

As for your second paragraph, again, forgive my ignorance in regards to health insurance providers and the way they function, but that's a fascinating and inherently positive byproduct of ACA.

Maybe I'm missing something....it seems that the OP is upset that he actually has to provide an estimate for what his income will be. The gov't does this in order to set the subsidy amount. The more you make the less the subsidy. If you say you will make $20K and it turns out you make $40K then yes they will most likely want to adjust the subsidy.

Yes...it's very positive. The ACA forces insurance companies to spend at least 80% of premiums providing health care services. They have had to keep premiums lower to meet that.

hedonist

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

I make too much to get subsidies so my premiums/coverage really hasn't changed. It's a fact that premiums have stopped increasing at the same rate that they used to increase at. For years I expected 20-25% annual increases. That changed as soon as the ACA was being discussed because insurance companies knew there was going to be more scrutiny.

Not for all, Gern.

Fortunately, we're able to afford our current monthly premiums; however, mine recently increased over 10% and my husband's has more than doubled (with reductions in coverage and access).

Gern Blansten

hedonist said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

I make too much to get subsidies so my premiums/coverage really hasn't changed. It's a fact that premiums have stopped increasing at the same rate that they used to increase at. For years I expected 20-25% annual increases. That changed as soon as the ACA was being discussed because insurance companies knew there was going to be more scrutiny.

Not for all, Gern.

Fortunately, we're able to afford our current monthly premiums; however, mine recently increased over 10% and my husband's has more than doubled (with reductions in coverage and access).

Yes there will always be exceptions. But to say they happened because of the ACA isn't likely unless you had such a horrible policy that the minimum requirements of the ACA disallowed it. In that case it really did you a favor. I know that is hard to swallow but if someone in your family developed a horrible illness you would be in much better shape.

DriftingByTheStorm

benjs said:

I'm curious to hear more about the part you vehemently disagree with though, I'm not sure which part you were referring to, and I'd love to hear your reasons why.

I thought I pretty clearly articulated that I vehemently disagreed with the very fundamental (to ACA) notion of handing out "free" healthcare.

The United States in SEVERELY in debt ... nevermind the long economic-intellectual discussion about what a Debt Based Money Supply (monitized debt) actually implies and how an every increasing debt burden is endemic to such a scheme ... and as such should be in NO position to consider handing out *even more* "free lunch" ...

The notion of "free" healthcare is abhorrent to me.
The notion of said "free" healthcare being instituted as some sort of idiotic "fix" to the system based on its "necessity" as a prerequisite for lifting restrictions on "preexisting conditions" is doubly idiotic given that "preexisting conditions" are fundamental to the notion of "insurance" in the first place. If you want to lift "preexisting conditions" restrictions what you really want is something else, something that is not insurance. This is by definition. Insurance protects against the possibility of a negative event. It is, by definition not a free ticket, ex post facto, out of a shitty situation.

You don't go wreck a car, and then insist that Progressive allow you to sign up for insurance and demand they cover you.

You don't go without home insurance, have your house burn down, and then insist that State Farm issue you a policy, and cover your damages.

etc etc etc.

If you want to argue that healthcare is (and of right, which i don't understand by the way, it is NOT a "right") different and should be treated differently, fine. Create a new class of instruments or use some sort of existing instrument that is not "insurance" and do it proper.

As it is, ACA is an abomination of an attempt at retrofitting a square peg in to a round hole at everyone's expense, and STILL it fails in it's basic charge -- getting those who need it, relatively hassle free, in to coverage.

Why Glen can not understand that in a world where simply getting your PREVIOUS years income down on paper in time for The Federal Government is ALREADY a hassle in-and-of-itself (maybe not for him, but for a large swath of the public, myself included) ... that the notion of FOWARD PROVING your income for an un-ended year might be an idiotic requirement ... well ... I just don't know. It seems simple. No government in history has asked it's citizens to show them forward proof of their as-of-yet-unearned income OR FACE A PENALTY for inaction. Nevermind the notion that penalizing me for something i did not do is ABHORRENT.

May as well issue me a tax-fine for not pissing three times a day.

Gern Blansten

DriftingByTheStorm said:

benjs said:

I'm curious to hear more about the part you vehemently disagree with though, I'm not sure which part you were referring to, and I'd love to hear your reasons why.

I thought I pretty clearly articulated that I vehemently disagreed with the very fundamental (to ACA) notion of handing out "free" healthcare.

The United States in SEVERELY in debt ... nevermind the long economic-intellectual discussion about what a Debt Based Money Supply (monitized debt) actually implies and how an every increasing debt burden is endemic to such a scheme ... and as such should be in NO position to consider handing out *even more* "free lunch" ...

The notion of "free" healthcare is abhorrent to me.
The notion of said "free" healthcare being instituted as some sort of idiotic "fix" to the system based on its "necessity" as a prerequisite for lifting restrictions on "preexisting conditions" is doubly idiotic given that "preexisting conditions" are fundamental to the notion of "insurance" in the first place. If you want to lift "preexisting conditions" restrictions what you really want is something else, something that is not insurance. This is by definition. Insurance protects against the possibility of a negative event. It is, by definition not a free ticket, ex post facto, out of a shitty situation.

You don't go wreck a car, and then insist that Progressive allow you to sign up for insurance and demand they cover you.

You don't go without home insurance, have your house burn down, and then insist that State Farm issue you a policy, and cover your damages.

etc etc etc.

If you want to argue that healthcare is (and of right, which i don't understand by the way, it is NOT a "right") different and should be treated differently, fine. Create a new class of instruments or use some sort of existing instrument that is not "insurance" and do it proper.

As it is, ACA is an abomination of an attempt at retrofitting a square peg in to a round hole at everyone's expense, and STILL it fails in it's basic charge -- getting those who need it, relatively hassle free, in to coverage.

Why Glen can not understand that in a world where simply getting your PREVIOUS years income down on paper in time for The Federal Government is ALREADY a hassle in-and-of-itself (maybe not for him, but for a large swath of the public, myself included) ... that the notion of FOWARD PROVING your income for an un-ended year might be an idiotic requirement ... well ... I just don't know. It seems simple. No government in history has asked it's citizens to show them forward proof of their as-of-yet-unearned income OR FACE A PENALTY for inaction. Nevermind the notion that penalizing me for something i did not do is ABHORRENT.

May as well issue me a tax-fine for not pissing three times a day.

Dude...there is no penalty if you get your income wrong. They would adjust your subsidy in the following year to offset the benefit you received. If you are worried about having to pay back a subsidy estimate your income a little high.

I understand the ACA in ways you can't imagine. It is YOU that doesn't appear to have a grasp on it.

Keep in mind that WE THE PEOPLE were paying the additional costs of the uninsured ourselves to begin with. The ACA just makes sure that the burden is spread among the population rather than only those that choose to be insured.

The ACA was the republican plan. Remember Romneycare?

hedonist

Gern Blansten said:

hedonist said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

obama care.......yeah it's working great.....why don't you guys sit down and really think about this obama care shit, the crap the OP is expierancing is just the start of this "FREE" health care coverage (or cheaper coverage) it sure seems to me that this plan was not desinged for the entire American population, Drifting the more you work the more the government wants from us and the less we work the more we can recieve from the government .....at the expense of hard working Americans like yourself. this idea was set to fail from the start for most Americans.

Godfather.

I make too much to get subsidies so my premiums/coverage really hasn't changed. It's a fact that premiums have stopped increasing at the same rate that they used to increase at. For years I expected 20-25% annual increases. That changed as soon as the ACA was being discussed because insurance companies knew there was going to be more scrutiny.

Not for all, Gern.

Fortunately, we're able to afford our current monthly premiums; however, mine recently increased over 10% and my husband's has more than doubled (with reductions in coverage and access).

Yes there will always be exceptions. But to say they happened because of the ACA isn't likely unless you had such a horrible policy that the minimum requirements of the ACA disallowed it. In that case it really did you a favor. I know that is hard to swallow but if someone in your family developed a horrible illness you would be in much better shape.

I had (still have) a great policy though I wonder what the increases going forward will be (10% each year will add up!).

My husband's prior policies were much better and less expensive than now. He already has several health issues, though they never entered into his attaining or continuing coverage (either before or now).

mookeywrench

RomneyCare was a state plan; not a federal plan and never to be a federal plan.

lolobugg

healthcare should be a basic human right. no one should die because they can't afford to pay to be treated. human life is more important than profits. I have worked part time and during that time I had to have an extended stay in hospital. If they had not written off most of the debt, I would've been ruined for life at the age of 24.

I agree that the system we have now is flawed. but it was the republicans that insisted on this instead of the original idea that was put forth. I and we already pay a ridiculous amount of tax and with all the things that the government wastes it on, affordable healthcare should be something that is provided to citizens. just my 2 cents.

I don't disagree that with your OP that the bureaucracy is f'king ridiculous.
but that is with all things in government unfortunately.
try going to VA to get treatment and see how many hoops you have to jump thru.

DriftingByTheStorm

lolobugg said:

healthcare should be a basic human right.

I agree. Also free access to water. Free organic food. And a free solar home.
No one should die because they can not afford food, water, or shelter.
We should provide the very best we can for everyone, and split the cost.

lolobugg

DriftingByTheStorm said:

lolobugg said:

healthcare should be a basic human right.

I agree. Also free access to water. Free organic food. And a free solar home.
No one should die because they can not afford food, water, or shelter.
We should provide the very best we can for everyone, and split the cost.

sarcasm... I seriously can't tell...
the solar home comment makes me think so

DriftingByTheStorm

Gern Blansten said:

Dude...there is no penalty if you get your income wrong. They would adjust your subsidy in the following year to offset the benefit you received. If you are worried about having to pay back a subsidy estimate your income a little high.

[...]

The ACA was the republican plan. Remember Romneycare?

I'm worried about having to spend several hours across three or more days working with two seperate employers and with my own books to get them the information they want.

I fundamentally disagree with being asked to hand over my bank account statements to them (which is one thing, easy, they would accept) and I am irritated enough with the process (and the fact that last year's return is just not good enough for them) to just give up. That frustration admittedly stems partly from preexisting animosity towards the program, but partly it is justified (imho).

I may be ignorant of the law in fact, but I am actually pretty sure that the eventual outcome of my failure to comply with their (as I perceive them burdensome) wishes to provide proof-of-current-year-income was going to be that my subsidy would be dropped, and that I was suddenly going to be receiving bills for healthcare I never wanted, never asked for, and sure as fuck can not afford. I called them to cancel so that they didn't pull some typical-government-bullshit and just simply start sending me bills. Regarding the penalty specifically, I could be wrong, but I also get the feeling they will be sending me a pro-rated penalty for the portion of the year I am now not covered for. At the very least, after their phone liason confirmed my cancellation she was obligated to read me a mouthful which included the language, "you may be fined for noncoverage".

Regarding your last comment about it being a "Republican plan", I am not even remotely partisan, and I seriously doubt that the ACA is either.

The issue was brought up hard in modern times by Republican Nixon and then worked on again with Democrat LBJ vis-a-vis Medicare and parts of his "Great Society" programs, and it was pushed for hard by Democrat-First-Lady Hillary Clinton in the 90's, and now down our throats by the Obaminator himself ... it certainly transcends party lines (the parties are really themselves just two seperate and polar tools of the Hegelian Overlords, ...) and should not be thought of in narrow terms of partisan ownership.

Gern Blansten

mookeywrench said:

RomneyCare was a state plan; not a federal plan and never to be a federal plan.

Yes it was a state plan....and Romney is on video stating that he hoped Obama would do what he did in Mass for the whole nation. Of course as soon as Obama did that he reversed himself but the video is out there.

Bentleyspop

DriftingByTheStorm said:

Gern Blansten said:

Dude...there is no penalty if you get your income wrong. They would adjust your subsidy in the following year to offset the benefit you received. If you are worried about having to pay back a subsidy estimate your income a little high.

[...]

The ACA was the republican plan. Remember Romneycare?

I'm worried about having to spend several hours across three or more days working with two seperate employers and with my own books to get them the information they want.

I fundamentally disagree with being asked to hand over my bank account statements to them (which is one thing, easy, they would accept) and I am irritated enough with the process (and the fact that last year's return is just not good enough for them) to just give up. That frustration admittedly stems partly from preexisting animosity towards the program, but partly it is justified (imho).

Regarding your last comment about it being a "Republican plan", I am not even remotely partisan, and I seriously doubt that the ACA is either.

The issue was brought up hard in modern times by Republican Nixon ( http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/nixon-proposal/ ) and then worked on again with Democrat LBJ vis-a-vis Medicare and parts of his "Great Society" programs, and it was pushed for hard by Democrat-First-Lady Hillary Clinton in the 90's, and now down our throats by the Obaminator himself ... it certainly transcends party lines (the parties are really themselves just two seperate and polar tools of the Hegelian Overlords, ...) and should not be thought of in narrow terms of partisan ownership.

I can't understand anything you write without an "F" bomb in every sentence.

Gern Blansten

DriftingByTheStorm said:

lolobugg said:

healthcare should be a basic human right.

I agree. Also free access to water. Free organic food. And a free solar home.
No one should die because they can not afford food, water, or shelter.
We should provide the very best we can for everyone, and split the cost.

Just go off the grid and cancel your health insurance. You won't get penalized if your income is low enough OR if your health plan costs 8% or more of your total income. (and guess what....it's going to be hard to find a health plan that is less than 8% of your income unless you are making $150K or more...see how that works?)

Problem solved.