Interestingly enough, there are a variety of plans with coverages “similar” to her existing $3,500 deductible for far less than the $647/mo she mentioned.
We have a system where all citizens of the country are forced to become a member of health insurance, this is to make health insurance affordable for everybody. It kind of sucks because I am a huge net contributor and I almost never use health care, but in the end I am glad to live in a society that puts the welfare of people before profit. The government mandated health insurance package here is great and I like knowing that I’ll never have to worry about not being able to pay my medical bills.
The healthcare question comes down to this: would you rather pay a bit more for health care and know that everybody has access to good health care, or live in a society where desperate people die because they cannot pay their medical bills, but keep a bit more of your money?
…We’re boned.
Meanwhile, Obamacare looks better and better by the day, and the OP looks sillier and sillier.
The second plan there is the one that mediate linked to. It does indicate a $0 deductible. I can’t seem to find the premium, though.
There’s a third way: play less for health care, and know that everybody has access to good care. The Brits pay less for the NHS than the U.S. does for its awful system.
Yes, that’s odd. There doesn’t seem to be any clear explanation for the second link, but it’s obviously wrong. If we found a webpage claiming that brand new Ferraris were on sale for $500, it might be a mistake, a joke, or a fraud, but it couldn’t possibly be accurate. Likewise for a health plan with a $0 deductible at $228 per month.
It’s correct. It’s just applicable to American Indians, evidently. I’m assuming our Sue is not an American Indian, so it seems Mediate clicked the wrong link. To be fair, it’s quite confusing since the plans have identical titles.
The Obamacare cancellation letter I got said if I do nothing, the to-be-cancelled policy will continue to apply until the end of 2014. So I haven’t been thinking there will be people stuck without insurance on 01/01/14. That won’t happen until 01/01/15 AFAIK, assuming we don’t put a solution in place.
I’m kinda confused as to why the exchanges not working correctly is even relevant to people being able to buy health insurance. The exchanges are just an aggregate that is convenient for comparison shopping.
Why can’t people having issues with the exchanges simply do what we did before they existed. Take some personal responsibility and call up the insurance companies directly to shop around for a new policy?
I’m not trying to be difficult I just don’t really grasp this issue. When my state, Massachusetts started their exchange I checked it out, found the best plan for my budget then called that company directly. They were able to offer me a lower price than on they offered through the exchange so I didn’t end up using the exchange.
The Feds allowed (NOT mandated) the companies to extend the individual policies (the ones being cancelled) until 1/1/15.
California said: “No, people are going to get screwed sometime; might as well be sooner than later” and blocked those extensions (ask me ho I know).
So, those of us in CA facing cancellation for non-compliance are back to looking at 1/1/14.
True, I did not take that into account. I wonder where all that extra money goes anyway. More unhealthy lifestyle? Executives? Very high doctors’ pay?
Under the law, subsidies are only available to those who buy through the state exchanges. The administration has extended this policy to the federal exchange, since most states did not set up their own exchanges, though the legality of this is now being argued in court.
As a political matter, part of the way the ACA was sold was that it would make the process of getting insurance easier and prices would be more transparent, and thus competitive.
So, reading the cite, seemed to my eye to have a bit of spin. Not evidenced in much of anything but word choice, such as describing the Obama admin as “desperate”. The author is described as being associated with the Manhattan Institute, so I had a look-see.
Wiki, of course…
Mmmm, yes. Positions?
Funding?
The Koch Brothers, Scaife, and the tobacco industry. My all time favorites when it comes to strictly non-partisan information. Actually, no…
Your correspondent does not explicitly aver any non-factual assertions on the part of the author of the cited piece. A grain or two of salt might be well advised.
I see a plan with a $3,000 deductible at $471 per month–a $180 increase over what she had before the ACA. Not surprisingly the copays on that one are on the high side, and we don’t know about details such as restricted networks of physicians or hospitals. It would seem that Klinkhamer is screwed, but can make some small choices as fas as how she gets screwed.
Of course, it’s still just a “seem” scenario since we don’t really know the details of her old plan and new plan.
For example, I changed from a regular PPO to a High Deductible PPO with HSA plan a few years back, from the same company. Interestingly enough, the changes to my coverage weren’t just a higher deductible, lots of other things got changed, from what I was charged for prescription drugs to what I got charged for doctor’s visits.
Without knowing the copays and coverages from her old plan, it’s hard to actually state that she’s getting screwed, she may simply be transitioning from a plan that is total garbage to a plan that provides real coverage, and paying somewhat more.
Either way, her initial claim was nonsense, which is one aspect of this “debate” that is infuriating. You can’t trust anything anybody says. People are more than happy to be interviewed and put complete lies up for the entire world to read. That’s beside the fact that our frigging system is so goddamn complicated that most of us can’t even figure out what the reality of our coverage is until it bites us in the ass.
That’s not an accurate summary. Your premise, that “subsidies are only available to those who buy through the state exchanges” and that the “administration has extended this policy to the federal exchange” assumes that one side of the lawsuit is correct. But they’re not. Seethis thread.
Dear Sir or Madam:
It has come to our attention in reviewing your claim that you have a pre-existing condition, that is, the possession of an ass that may be bitten. Typically, such a condition is present at birth, and thus clearly qualifies as “pre-existing”. We further note that in your visit with your doctor, you sat upon said ass and obscured it from view…
The lawsuits are ongoing (haven’t been dismissed) - I think it’s premature to say that one side is correct or incorrect. If I had to bet I’d say the suits fail.
It’s never premature to say one side is wrong!
(I understand your point, of course. The lawsuits may or may not succeed. But if they succeed, they’re still wrong. :))
As the Republicans are against people receiving subsidized health care to begin with, what is their bitch about the exchanges not working? People are more than capable of finding unsubsidized health plans on there own. Are we to believe they are seriously concerned about ‘lay abouts’ not being able to get ‘socialist’ health care plans?