I Just Canceled My Free Obamacare ...

rustyrails

Is it really that hard to keep your finances in order?... I mean shit dude.. You have time to come on here and bitch about it. Would you be upset if wealthy people were getting subsidies because they didn't have to prove their income?

You're going to pop a blood vessel... chill the F out if you're not going to have health care.

DriftingByTheStorm

rustyrails said:

Is it really that hard to keep your finances in order?... I mean shit dude.. You have time to come on here and bitch about it. Would you be upset if wealthy people were getting subsidies because they didn't have to prove their income?

You're going to pop a blood vessel... chill the F out if you're not going to have health care.

If You're asking me is it really that hard for me to prove my current years income for three separate jobs, the answer is yes. It really is that fucking hard.

Last-12-Exit

I agree with you drifting. It's not the government's place to tell anyone that they have to get health insurance or face penalties. The ACA, aka Obamacare, will eventually be overturned in the years (and administrations) to come.

CM189191

....OP's problem would easily be solved if we just had Universal Health Care instead.

You know....like the rest of the industrialized world...

gimmesometruth27

we need universal single payer. our system now is a joke. for profit health insurance is a bigger joke.

unsung

rustyrails said:

Is it really that hard to keep your finances in order?... I mean shit dude.. You have time to come on here and bitch about it. Would you be upset if wealthy people were getting subsidies because they didn't have to prove their income?

You're going to pop a blood vessel... chill the F out if you're not going to have health care.

Welcome to the forum.

Gern Blansten

Actually if your income is low there is no penalty at all. Lots of bad information going around. Also no penalty if your premiums exceed 8%of your income.

Gern Blansten

gimmesometruth27 said:

we need universal single payer. our system now is a joke. for profit health insurance is a bigger joke.

Agreed... I support gradually lowering the Medicare age until it covers all.

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

I agree with you drifting. It's not the government's place to tell anyone that they have to get health insurance or face penalties. The ACA, aka Obamacare, will eventually be overturned in the years (and administrations) to come.

Lol.... Never... Unless it is replaced by universal care. That is the next logical step. For profit health care cannot sustain itself. The world has already shown us that.

Gern Blansten

DriftingByTheStorm said:

rustyrails said:

Is it really that hard to keep your finances in order?... I mean shit dude.. You have time to come on here and bitch about it. Would you be upset if wealthy people were getting subsidies because they didn't have to prove their income?

You're going to pop a blood vessel... chill the F out if you're not going to have health care.

If You're asking me is it really that hard for me to prove my current years income for three separate jobs, the answer is yes. It really is that fucking hard.

Three paystubs? That should take a minute

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.