Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
F3SS

Obamacare average $20K per family!

232 posts in this topic

I do keep my open for an option that will fit my needs and circumstances. It just is not available and I dont see the option there under what Ive seen from Obamacare that wouldnt further put me in the poorhouse.

Well see after the sequestor when pregnant women cant get snap anymore. Im more worried about that then my own healthcare needs atm tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't either. A little over a year from now I'll have it by marriage. Until then I'll take my chances like always. Even if I weren't getting married I still wouldn't buy it out of defiance. I'll be damned if someone who works for me gets to tell me what I have to buy simply for being alive. You now have to pay an insurance company or corporation to be a law abiding American these days because the people you employ said so. I'm sure our employees aren't getting a kickback for this, right? Far as I'm concerned when the people you pay step out of line like this I call it insubordination.

Indeed Insurance in general is a scam. Only useful if you need it is a great business model. But when you need it we dictate what you get. An even greater business model.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Insurance in general is a scam. Only useful if you need it is a great business model. But when you need it we dictate what you get. An even greater business model.

Be that as it may, it is still a choice wether to purchase and who you purchase from. Now you still have a choice but it's wether to buy expensive crappy health insurance or pay a fine with an official IRS gun to your head. Don't say that's paranoid because if you are defiant enough, ultimately there will be a gun pointed at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said. One must have interaction with the IRS for said gun to come into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said. One must have interaction with the IRS for said gun to come into play.

Well you just may when you don't pay that fine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say its fun living on the edge sometimes. :gun: IRS can kiss my bumm. They took my family in the Inheritance tax for everything my grandparents worked there lives for and now they aint getting a red dime outta me. The banks broke my Dad and Mom with there retirement devaluation....Now there working into there late 60's to survive as a result. Me Im.....just not gonna say anymore but I have a kid and I give a crud what his life will look like moreso then my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Insurance in general is a scam. Only useful if you need it is a great business model. But when you need it we dictate what you get. An even greater business model.

Sounds like you're thinking health insurance is (or should be) something that only people who are guaranteed to immediately get more out than they pay in--say, because they're sick--should buy. In which case it would actually be a terrible business model. You can't have people waiting to buy it until they get sick or get hit by a car or whatever. If only sick or bleeding people are buying it, it doesn't work.

If private health insurance is going to be viable you have to have something in place to keep healthy people from waiting until they get sick to sign up. You can either do that by actively pushing people to start buying it when they're still healthy (which obviously many of you find very offensive) or by turning sick people away or otherwise penalizing people for their medical history when they try to buy insurance (which many people also find very offensive). Neither one of these approaches is going to leave everybody happy and everybody thinking it's fair.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is: if you can't afford insurance right now and you get sick or develop some sort of health problem while you're uninsured, should that make you uninsurable for the rest of your life (or at least is that something you should be penalized for if you try to buy insurance next year or in 5 years or in 10 years)? If you think yes, then kudos on your consistency.

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you're thinking health insurance is (or should be) something that only people who are guaranteed to immediately get more out than they pay in--say, because they're sick--should buy. In which case it would actually be a terrible business model. You can't have people waiting to buy it until they get sick or get hit by a car or whatever. If only sick or bleeding people are buying it, it doesn't work.

Then what's the rationale behind now having to insure for preexisting conditions? I always thought doing the opposite was smart business. What makes you think people won't be paying the cheaper fines only to buy insurance when they need it? If preexisting conditions are covered, why not?

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is: if you can't afford insurance right now and you get sick or develop some sort of health problem while you're uninsured, should that make you uninsurable for the rest of your life (or at least is that something you should be penalized for if you try to buy insurance next year or in 5 years or in 10 years)? If you think yes, then kudos on your consistency.

Nah, you should be able to do what you want with your own life and if you didn't make the right decisions then that's life and it's not always nice and easy.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the question you have to ask yourself is: if you can't afford insurance right now and you get sick or develop some sort of health problem while you're uninsured, should that make you uninsurable for the rest of your life (or at least is that something you should be penalized for if you try to buy insurance next year or in 5 years or in 10 years)? If you think yes, then kudos on your consistency.

TBH Im more likely to get DNR tattoed on my chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's DNR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then what's the rationale behind now having to insure for preexisting conditions? I always thought doing the opposite was smart business. What makes you think people won't be paying the cheaper fines only to buy insurance when they need it? If persisting conditions are covered, why not?

The rationale is that Congress decided people ought to have access to care for their health problems (there are efficiency arguments against having a health system with a large uninsured population but the visceral argument is the simplest and most direct). But if that's the case, insurance markets--particularly the ones in which people who don't have group insurance plans through their jobs have to shop-- have to work differently than they have in the past. And part of that means there has to be something in place to eliminate or at least blunt the bad incentives that would otherwise be created for people to just free ride until they get sick. That's what the individual mandate is for. It's the price we pay for having a private system that also aspires to give everyone, no matter how sick, access to care.

As for whether people will generally pay the fine or not, that remains to be seen. In Massachusetts, most people have opted to get something for their dollar. Ultimately it's the choice between paying less and getting nothing or paying more and getting something.

Insurers won't be able to turn you away but that doesn't mean you can buy insurance in the ambulance and everything will be fine for you. There's going to be a seven week open enrollment period each year (October 15 - December 7) in which you can enroll in a new insurance plan in the new marketplaces; except for in certain special circumstances, if you don't buy during that window you can't buy it in those marketplaces. Meaning if you go uninsured and have a heart attack in February, you can rack up quite a few bills that are solely your responsibility before you buy a health plan during open enrollment in the fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Not Resuscitate...In other words let me die instead of leaving me crippled up into some home eating pureed food for the next 15 years because medical technology can keep me alive. Ill just take it the old fashioned way. Naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rationale is that Congress decided people ought to have access to care for their health problems (there are efficiency arguments against having a health system with a large uninsured population but the visceral argument is the simplest and most direct). But if that's the case, insurance markets--particularly the ones in which people who don't have group insurance plans through their jobs have to shop-- have to work differently than they have in the past. And part of that means there has to be something in place to eliminate or at least blunt the bad incentives that would otherwise be created for people to just free ride until they get sick. That's what the individual mandate is for. It's the price we pay for having a private system that also aspires to give everyone, no matter how sick, access to care.

The argument is that the healthier younger population is taking on an extra burden through higher premiums then they currently would pay in order to pay for our huge baby boomer population that is now needing more and more healthcare. This really only became an issue when the numbers of takers of healthcare outmatched those contributing to it. So now those that do not need are going to be carrying the burden. A burden they may in fact never use themselves.

For example if I dont drive I dont buy Car Insurance. So if I pay out of pocket for my healthcare then why do I have to pay for Health Insurance. I can say one thing from years of experience being a cash payer to my Doctor is I tend to get better healthcare for less money.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rationale is that Congress decided people ought to have access to care for their health problems (there are efficiency arguments against having a health system with a large uninsured population but the visceral argument is the simplest and most direct). But if that's the case, insurance markets--particularly the ones in which people who don't have group insurance plans through their jobs have to shop-- have to work differently than they have in the past. And part of that means there has to be something in place to eliminate or at least blunt the bad incentives that would otherwise be created for people to just free ride until they get sick. That's what the individual mandate is for. It's the price we pay for having a private system that also aspires to give everyone, no matter how sick, access to care.

As for whether people will generally pay the fine or not, that remains to be seen. In Massachusetts, most people have opted to get something for their dollar. Ultimately it's the choice between paying less and getting nothing or paying more and getting something.

Insurers won't be able to turn you away but that doesn't mean you can buy insurance in the ambulance and everything will be fine for you. There's going to be a seven week open enrollment period each year (October 15 - December 7) in which you can enroll in a new insurance plan in the new marketplaces; except for in certain special circumstances, if you don't buy during that window you can't buy it in those marketplaces. Meaning if you go uninsured and have a heart attack in February, you can rack up quite a few bills that are solely your responsibility before you buy a health plan during open enrollment in the fall.

Appreciate your knowledge of the subject. However, the POTUS has sold the people on or existing conditions. I don't recall him specifying preexisting conditions would be covered only October through December. You must understand that the masses do not understand these things and will not be happy when they find out. Why couldn't Obama be as clear and specific as you? I know, because this never would gotten past the court of public opinion if the details were known. That's why we had to pass it before we could know what's in it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is that the healthier younger population is taking on an extra burden through higher premiums then they currently would pay in order to pay for our huge baby boomer population that is now needing more and more healthcare. This really only became an issue when the numbers of takers of healthcare outmatched those contributing to it. So now those that do not need are going to be carrying the burden. A burden they may in fact never use themselves.

It's not a matter of "takers" outnumbering others. The whole point of using an insurance model like this is that health expenditures are concentrated on some subset of the population. For instance, more than a fifth of all of our spending on health care as a nation goes toward the expenses of just the most expensive 1% of the population. Meanwhile, the cheapest half of our population accounts for less than 3% of all our health care spending.

3%20Concentration%20of%20Health%20Care%20Spending%20in%20the%20U.S.%20Population,%202009.jpg

We pay because the segments of the population running up all those bills can't possibly pay for them all by themselves and any one of us could be (and at some point in our lives very likely will be) in their place. It's true that as you get older you get more likely to fall into that higher spending category. The folks not using the resources pay in along with the folks who are using the resources, and when they in turn get sick and/or old others pitch in to help them finance their care. Pay it forward (or backward, as the case may be).

It's not a good bet that you're never, in your lifetime, going to be one of those who needs help paying for their care. And when you eventually do need that help, the folks pitching in to offer it are going to include a lot people who aren't, at that time, in great need of health care themselves.

Appreciate your knowledge of the subject. However, the POTUS has sold the people on or existing conditions. I don't recall him specifying preexisting conditions would be covered only October through December. You must understand that the masses do not understand these things and will not be happy when they find out.

"The masses," by and large, get their insurance at work. And I would think virtually all of those people are familiar with the concept of an open enrollment period, as those are pretty standard in group plans (primarily because those already have some protections for people with pre-existing conditions). And in Medicare for that matter, for folks who want to choose a private Medicare Advantage plan.

This won't be new for most people with insurance. Ask folks about their company's open enrollment period.

Why couldn't Obama be as clear and specific as you? I know, because this never would gotten past the court of public opinion if the details were known. That's why we had to pass it before we could know what's in it.

I imagine it's because this stuff is getting pretty far in the weeds and politicians generally talk in broad strokes. I'm sure plenty of eyes that happen to pass through this thread are glazing over just on these posts--not exactly great fodder for a political speech.

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The masses," by and large, get their insurance at work. And I would think virtually all of those people are familiar with the concept of an open enrollment period, as those are pretty standard in group plans (primarily because those already have some protections for people with pre-existing conditions). And in Medicare for that matter, for folks who want to choose a private Medicare Advantage plan.

This won't be new for most people with insurance. Ask folks about their company's open enrollment period.

I imagine it's because this stuff is getting pretty far in the weeds and politicians generally talk in broad strokes. I'm sure plenty of eyes that happen to pass through this thread are glazing over just on these posts--not exactly great fodder for a political speech.

Well I've been out of the 'regular' workforce for quite some time so I don't know about open enrollment. But I'm not the only one. There are millions of self employed people, many of which have employees like myself who are unfamiliar with such things. All of my guys are under the assumption that preexisting conditions will be covered regardless of when. I haven't got into the insurance providing realm as an employer yet because at first I couldn't afford it and now the capital I have I like to put towards growing the business and its working. The only other choice is to spend all the money on benefits and wages and have a stagnant go-nowhere business with no certainty of better things to come. I have to think long term. One day I'm sure ill be able to provide such things but if that's to happen I can't provide them now at least without any guarantee they'll be provided next year.

I disagree about the last part. The voters yearn for specifics. Alright, many of us at least. Remember the big problem with Romney? Big ideas with no specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a good bet that you're never, in your lifetime, going to be one of those who needs help paying for their care. And when you eventually do need that help, the folks pitching in to offer it are going to include a lot people who aren't, at that time, in great need of health care themselves.

Thats only true if I wasnt buying a 50$ box of kleenex while I was needing that healthcare that I didnt use one of. Or if I wasnt still getting handed a multi thousand dollar bill as I left the hospital even under Obamacare. Or having to pay a $20 copay for a $65 doctor visit. I get your math and understand your position but its a broken system thats being tried to be fixed with a broken sledgehammer. This is no way will reduce the cost of healthcare.

Obamacare is going to let Healthcare costs spiral into the stratosphere IMO which we will then get sorry folks those premiums are going up. I will just practice healthy living and do my best to not need the system that I feel is corrupt. If I do then I will pay cash as I said.

If they come up with a realistic system then Ill support it. Im not unreasonable (haha) but this was one sell I didnt buy so I dont feel obligated to purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What many of you do not understand is the fact that with or without Obamacare health care costs would be skyrocketing, and keep skyrocketing well past that $20k a year mark. For many people in this country health care is already too expensive and they already are bankrupt because of it. So knowing this fact, what would you choose to do about it? Keep it the same? I know people who were not even able to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. So its just too bad for them? Shouldn't have got cancer then? SOMETHING had/has to be done about our healthcare system! It is outrageous! Why is it that we spend the most on healthcare but we are not even close to having the healthiest population? All I hear from most of you is just complaining about Obamacare but offering absolutely no new ideas or no counter-proposal of your own. So yeah, keep complaining, cause that will change things. :su

Are we so weak that all we do is sit at our computers and complain about the way things are? Ours is the age of inaction, of laziness, of doing nothing it would seem. Sad, so very sad.

Edited by Einsteinium
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What many of you do not understand is the fact that with or without Obamacare health care costs would be skyrocketing, and keep skyrocketing well past that $20k a year mark. For many people in this country health care is already too expensive and they already are bankrupt because of it. So knowing this fact, what would you choose to do about it? Keep it the same? I know people who were not even able to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. So its just too bad for them? Shouldn't have got cancer then? SOMETHING had/has to be done about our healthcare system! It is outrageous! Why is it that we spend the most on healthcare but we are not even close to having the healthiest population? All I hear from most of you is just complaining about Obamacare but offering absolutely no new ideas or no counter-proposal of your own. So yeah, keep complaining, cause that will change things. :su

Are we so weak that all we do is sit at our computers and complain about the way things are? Ours is the age of inaction, of laziness, of doing nothing it would seem. Sad, so very sad.

So if pre existing conditions are the major factor then why not just mandate that because the affordable care act provides anything but affordability. Instead we are forced out of a few thousand dollars a year under the gun that is the IRS. All this bill does is lower everybodies income for the needs of a few.

We can complain all we want. Just because I may not have a better solution doesn't mean that I see through a bad one or just accept it with my mouth shut. That's a big problem with the way this law came to be. "We need something now! Anything as long as it's something even if it sucks." Complaining is necessary. Imagine what those in charge would do if no one ever complained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I hear from most of you is just complaining about Obamacare but offering absolutely no new ideas or no counter-proposal of your own

My posts are an alternative solution for me.

This bad idea called Obamacare can be scrapped for a redo. There I made I suggestion to fix the problem.

Edited by AsteroidX
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if pre existing conditions are the major factor then why not just mandate that because the affordable care act provides anything but affordability. Instead we are forced out of a few thousand dollars a year under the gun that is the IRS. All this bill does is lower everybodies income for the needs of a few.

We can complain all we want. Just because I may not have a better solution doesn't mean that I see through a bad one or just accept it with my mouth shut. That's a big problem with the way this law came to be. "We need something now! Anything as long as it's something even if it sucks." Complaining is necessary. Imagine what those in charge would do if no one ever complained.

Okay sure I agree Obamacare sucks. But doing nothing would have sucked even more than Obamacare and prices would have gone up even more than they will under Obamacare. I agree that complaining is necessary, but complaining by itself is not enough. If you don't like Obamacare then come up with a better solution, or find someone else's solution that is better because I would love to hear it. The repubs had a huge opportunity to introduce a better solution and win a huge political victory against the dems but the failed. That sadly seems to be the norm for government these days, failure.

The pre-existing condition thing is huge. It was horrible for people who had pre-existing conditions. The free market system is great for the vast majority of things, but healthcare is not one of them. With the free market system controlling healthcare it leads to one thing- those who are wealthy can get great care, best in the world, and those who are middle class or lower go bankrupt for lesser care. If you do not have insurance and you get into an accident, have to go to the ER, go bankrupt as a result of that, then guess who ends up paying for it? All of us through higher healthcare costs because the costs have to be raised to make up for the lost profit due to the multitude of people who cannot pay because they do not have insurance because either they cannot afford it, are irresponsible enough to think they do not need at least emergency insurance, or have a pre-existing condition that prevented them from obtaining insurance. And so the price rises, and more people cannot afford it and cannot pay, and thus the price rises even more as a result of that. It keeps feeding on itself. What use is it to have the best healthcare in the world when only 5% of the population benefit from it? If we want to fix healthcare, I say then let us demand that congress get rid of their lucrative government insurance plan that WE pay for, and let them obtain health insurance the same way we all have to. You can bet you would see good meaningful change to healthcare right away of that was the case. A huge part of the problem is that congress is not even subjected to Obamacare, hence, they don't give a damn.

Edited by Einsteinium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay sure I agree Obamacare sucks. But doing nothing would have sucked even more than Obamacare and prices would have gone up even more than they will under Obamacare. I agree that complaining is necessary, but complaining by itself is not enough. If you don't like Obamacare then come up with a better solution, or find someone else's solution that is better because I would love to hear it. The repubs had a huge opportunity to introduce a better solution and win a huge political victory against the dems but the failed. That sadly seems to be the norm for government these days, failure.

The pre-existing condition thing is huge. It was horrible for people who had pre-existing conditions. The free market system is great for the vast majority of things, but healthcare is not one of them. With the free market system controlling healthcare it leads to one thing- those who are wealthy can get great care, best in the world, and those who are middle class or lower go bankrupt for lesser care. If you do not have insurance and you get into an accident, have to go to the ER, go bankrupt as a result of that, then guess who ends up paying for it? All of us through higher healthcare costs because the costs have to be raised to make up for the lost profit due to the multitude of people who cannot pay because they do not have insurance because either they cannot afford it, are irresponsible enough to think they do not need at least emergency insurance, or have a pre-existing condition that prevented them from obtaining insurance. And so the price rises, and more people cannot afford it and cannot pay, and thus the price rises even more as a result of that. It keeps feeding on itself. What use is it to have the best healthcare in the world when only 5% of the population benefit from it? If we want to fix healthcare, I say then let us demand that congress get rid of their lucrative government insurance plan that WE pay for, and let them obtain health insurance the same way we all have to. You can bet you would see good meaningful change to healthcare right away of that was the case. A huge part of the problem is that congress is not even subjected to Obamacare, hence, they don't give a damn.

You make a lot of sense especially concerning congress and their healthcare. I understand the plight of preexisting conditions but I don't see how insurance companies can stay afloat. Look to auto insurance. If no one buys it until they crash well then that can't last too long. Sooner or later the insurance company will go broke. But I get that in order to have preexisting conditions included that everybody has to chip in to make it work either by purchase or f'd up fine. Isn't your gripe that everyone else has to pay for those who get care without insurance via higher costs? But you're ok with literally everybody covering the costs wether they use it or not instead of just those who receive healthcare. Man I could go on and on but I have stated my thoughts time and again here so I'll digress and just say I think it's crap and think it will ultimately become such a cluster*#~^* that eventually the democrat saviors will step in and tell us they have a new solution and that they never wanted it to be this way and that it's someone else's fault and the only way to fix it will be purely at the hands of the government. They'll say we didn't want single payer but it's the only solution and it must be done now!

Ya know this whole mandate deal hasn't been made certain for the future yet. As I understand it the mandate may still be overruled in a couple years when it goes back to the SCOTUS. IIRC they couldn't rule against the mandate until it was actually implemented and is to return back to the SCOTUS for final ruling in 2015 or 2016.

Forcing every working adult out of several thousand dollars a year just doesn't jive well with me. Scratch that... Adults under 26 with parents still around will be covered under the parents. After all, dependence is the way of the left.

Lastly, I can't come up with a better plan. It's way out of my level of expertise. I'm just a blue collar man. If you know of a better idea than present it but just because you don't doesn't mean you have to accept something you think sucks.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excuse me for joining in, and not being american, and for skipping the first nine pages of this post, but wouldn't $20,000pa for an entire family be cheaper than healthcare is now?

bearing in mind that where I live, healthcare is deducted from you wages as 'national insurance', at which I pay £7000pa ($11,000?) and never visit a doctor, wouldn't it all balance out over time?

I know for a fact that if I was seriously injured/had a terminal illness, then my needs would be met regardless of how much money I had, or had paid into the system, because working for the common good of everyone is a selfless act, which I may or may not have need of, now or in the future, but am comfortable in the knowledge that it's there if needs be. it's not communism, just common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
excuse me for joining in, and not being american, and for skipping the first nine pages of this post, but wouldn't $20,000pa for an entire family be cheaper than healthcare is now?

bearing in mind that where I live, healthcare is deducted from you wages as 'national insurance', at which I pay £7000pa ($11,000?) and never visit a doctor, wouldn't it all balance out over time?

I know for a fact that if I was seriously injured/had a terminal illness, then my needs would be met regardless of how much money I had, or had paid into the system, because working for the common good of everyone is a selfless act, which I may or may not have need of, now or in the future, but am comfortable in the knowledge that it's there if needs be. it's not communism, just common sense.

We still have copays and will be given a bill as it will pay I believe 85% for hospital care. My understanding is you get no Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still have copays and will be given a bill as it will pay I believe 85% for hospital care. My understanding is you get no Bill.

_

yes asteroid, we get no bills whatsoever.

our healthcare costs are taken straight from our wages, as a form of tax, and we don't begrudge it, because we never see it, and our wages are adjusted accordingly, ie- if you're paid minimum wage, you pay hardly anything, but if you earn megabucks, you pay more, but it's never so much that it hurts, in fact, it's never that much that you even feel it!

wouldn't it be better if the americans adopted the same, means-tested system? or would there be too much pressure from the high-earners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.