The no-insurance discount is government-subsidized. I would have to commit perjury to claim it.
My premiums have been increasing by 10% a year since I can remember. ACA has not changed this. I don’t care. I’m proud to live in a country that took a step to take care of the less fortunate, even if it is closely resembles a Republican plan from the 1990s.
As to the OP, I’m sure this is one of the inevitably debunked Obamacare horror stories once all the variables other than premiums are accounted for.
Both, actually. Enrollment is higher, as a percentage, for people who could not get coverage before ACA due to pre-existing conditions, age, etc. It is lagging, as a percentage, for younger people - especially young men. In other words, people who use the health care system (expense) are signing up at a faster clip than people who don’t (income).
The idea that this initial outcome surprise anyone is beyond me.
You have to swear, under oath, that you don’t have health insurance? Do they have a bible in the waiting room?
[QUOTE=garygnu]
My expenses for medical have gone up, but no matter your insurance policy, cancer is fucking expensive.
[/QUOTE]
That’s putting it mildly.
We’ve already blown right through our deductible and out of pocket max for the year, and we’re not even halfway through January.
Mine goes up a little each year, no biggie.
Well, you’re no longer relying on the welfare state. That happens. congratulations. People who get jobs sometimes lose subsidized apartments and pay more for rent. That’s not a bad thing. You got insurance and no longer have to rely on the kindness of the poverty clinic.
mine went up 33% ABOVE the increase of 7%. How do I know this? I was renewing as the ACA was going up for vote and was given 2 numbers to work with.
I had to take a higher deductable in the process.
-
Medicines that were covered for me are no longer covered. And there is more of course but that goes beyond what you asked.
-
Tort reform is where the best savings are for everyone.
-
I basically can’t afford to see my doctor for routine matters anymore so I treat myself until a small problem becomes a more serious issue. And when I do see her its always the game of “I know that’s the drug I should have but I can’t afford it. What’s second or third best?”
I’m glad the ACA has worked out for you; I really and sincerely am. All I can add to that is “you’re welcome - happy to help you out”.
Anything that is promoted as affordable is likely to be the opposite.
My Representative is Dr Tom Price, who’s currently chair of the House Budget Committee. He came to talk at my company last year (we write software that handles medical claims processing) and one of the things he discussed was ways to lower the cost of healthcare. This representative, who is a republican, a doctor, and deals with budgets as a chairman in the House, admits that tort reform will save at most 2% of costs. It’s a drop in the bucket and will have minimal effect on the cost of healthcare.
Tort reform is a red herring. We as a society need to stop bringing it up as the thing that will lower costs, because the effect will be negligible.
Republicans always say tort reform is a Bad Thing.
Actually both Parties are about equally bad on the subject. But do we expect anything different considering how many are lawyers? 
Different people throw different ideas and calculations around. Maybe the effect would be very small, maybe the savings would be huge. But like the basic principles behind the ACA itself, its an idea thats been talked about enough that its time to try it out and see how it fits. At least to me. I don’t hold it against those who feel otherwise. I got onto the subject ages ago when the original Orphan Drug Act was being discussed and its one of those things I’ve just kept some tabs on.
I know that the exchanges don’t cover everyone (for example, people who are old enough for medicare but do not qualify because they are recent immigrants) but I did not realize that ere was a MINIMUM income requirement to qualify. :eek::mad::(:smack:
I’ve been pretty much screwed over by the ACA. Healthy, 40s male, lower middle class. Premiums were $75 per month before ACA, then $125, then $180, then $216, now for this year they want $280. I guess I fall into some category that makes me subsidize others.
“If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.” HA! Every single year they made me get a whole new policy because the old one didn’t have some new ACA provision in it, like maternity coverage or infant dental coverage.
I’m opting out, had enough.
It seems to me that you need a minimum income to qualify for subsidies, not to sign up for a plan itself.
To the OP:
I have, and will again, reap the riches. My oldest daughter contracted cancer in her eye when she was 24, and had the eye surgically removed. We had excellent insurance, which covered her until she turned 26. (Her latest exam shows her cancer free)
My wife’s company will be closing, and my wife has diabetes. When she changes jobs, or when we have to buy insurance off the shelf, she won’t be denied for a pre-existing condition.
That’s two points in favor of Obamacare. I’m for it.
I thought Republicans say tort reform is a good thing, because it allows doctors, Big Pharma, hospitals, etc. to keep their money instead of paying out big judgements.
I was going to say, tort reform has been the rallying cry for republican healthcare reform for decades. Amazing to hear someone claiming otherwise.
I’ll be looking forward to your “Thank You” card.