One man's ObamaCare nightmare[W:51]

It's funny to see liberals talk about personal responsibility. :lol:

I agree though. I think everyone should pay their own way. Everybody. Even those young skulls full f mush who think it is acceptable for the federal government to hijack the medical system. So I'm helping.

About a month ago my 21 year old stepson moved in with us. The plan was that he was going to go to college here. His father is a lazy piece of **** and rather than be a good parent and teach his son the skills he would need to take care of himself, he decided it would be easier to just be his friend. So the stepson was raised in a home where all they did was play video games. At 21 he has the maturity level of a 15 year old. He calls himself a gamer, I call him a vidiot.

So the agreement was that he would come here and sign up for school. I required no payment from him, the only stipulation being that he had to hold at least a part time job. My wife added him to our family insurance policy. After a month and a half he still had no job and had not signed up for school. I'm thinking it might be tough to get a job if you stay up all night playing video games and sleep all day.

Last week he "borrowed" some money from my wife so he could drive back down to Florida to see his girlfriend who just started college in Pensacola. He texted his mother and told her he was moving in with her down there. So I guess school and a job are not really in the cards.

Did I mention this idiot voted for Obama? You know why? BECAUSE HE WAS COOL. I'm not ****ting you, what he actually said was that it seemed like it was time to have a cool black guy for a president.

So I dropped him from the insurance. Good luck with that exchange. Guess he'll need to get a job now. He'll be finding out just how cool his choice is, huh?

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

shagg said:

Fair enough. But you're saying you have the right to insure yourself as you see fit. I would have no problem with this if taxpayers didn't have to foot the bill when your cheap insurance (or lack there of for many many people) comes up short. When emergency rooms became legally obligated to treat anyone who walks through their doors, despite ability to pay, mandatory insurance of a certain caliber became an inevitability. And the longer we wait the more painful it will be.

Click to expand...

Taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for health care on anybody. To do so was decisions made by elected officials. ER's not being legally obligated to treat anybody that comes thru their doors with no intention to pay is an option. A good one I would add.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Boo Radley said:

Routine care, while less expensive, is also something that is on going. Many of the working poor have to make more difficult decisions, and health care is often left unmet. This does a few things. One they are set up to have more health problems. And this leads to more serious issues later on, and then we pay for it.

Click to expand...

That study done out in Oregon shows otherwise. Health insurance/no health insurance, makes no difference in health.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

ItAin'tFree said:

Taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for health care on anybody. To do so was decisions made by elected officials. ER's not being legally obligated to treat anybody that comes thru their doors with no intention to pay is an option. A good one I would add.

Click to expand...

People who don't pay for their health care are just one of the reasons health care is so expensive. The government doesn't pay these bills, the providers roll the costs in to what they charge those of us who do pay. Now IF (and that's a big if) this law actually meant that everybody was going to have insurance (which it won't, in fact estimates are that just as many people who do not have insurance now will be without it after this plan goes in to effect) perhaps those costs could come down. Of course, that would be assuming that the costs would actually be adjusted down as though it were a competitive private market AND the reductions would more than make up for the extra administrative costs involved with Obamacare. In fact, the administrative costs of providers dealing with insurance companies makes up about 1/4 of our total "health care" costs. Obamacare adds another layer of bureaucracy, and it is likely to be like everything else government, inefficient. But that's OK, everybody will understand it soon enough.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

jmotivator said:

I'm not asking you to foot the bill, and in my system you wouldn't have to foot the bill because I am covering BOTH the cost of insurance and the cost of the deductible through my health savings plan.

Also, the nice thing about a health savings plan is that I can carry it over, and when the time comes that the current system is no longer serviceable I can use the savings I have amassed in that account to pay for or partially subsidize a more comprehensive plan that I CHOOSE.

But that is all broken now because douchebag Democrats can't seem to "fix" anything anymore without destroying it first.

Click to expand...

I'm going to go ahead and assume this method of health coverage isn't new. And that fits into a larger problem that has caused a need for change. People, for whatever reason, are really really lazy when it comes to their own health care. People do not shop around for anything really or understand much of whats going on with their care, bills, coverage, and alternative options for all 3. Arguably, the government could have created an agency or program of some sort to hold peoples hands and walk them through the system down the path that lead to a good solid compromise between cost and coverage/care. No idea how much it would cost the nation, but it might have been ... more efficient than the ACA.

The fact that you'll no longer be able to do things the way you have been does not mean you have no right to choose. You can still choose from a variety of coverage options and combinations, there's just minimums that have been set now, so you can't take certain risks in exchange for lower rates. Also, Healthcare reform resulted in the ACA. If republicans were able to accept the fact that the ACA isn't going to be repealed, they might be able to make some very good improvements on it, some much needed improvements. In debate, the Nirvana Fallacy is known and recognized. Republicans seem to be committing it with their total and complete rejection of all things ACA because it isn't perfect. But they spend all their time and effort finding those imperfections (and inventing them when needed) and pushing the nations face in them.

Want to keep your plan? I'm sure it could happen under the ACA with some constructive debate and compromise. The ACA is here to stay but the details aren't written in stone. But republicans can't seem to allow anything with obamas name on it to stand, never mind participate in its successful reform and implementation. They've invested too heavily in its (and his) failure.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

ItAin'tFree said:

Taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for health care on anybody. To do so was decisions made by elected officials. ER's not being legally obligated to treat anybody that comes thru their doors with no intention to pay is an option. A good one I would add.

Click to expand...

Reagans administration put that one in the books. I'm split on the issue myself. I don't think its right to leave someone dying on the ERs front step because they can't prove they can pay. And yet, asking taxpayers to pick up the tab isn't right either. Nor is it right to ask the hospital to absorb the cost, because they just pass it on to patients who can pay via inflated charges for services rendered.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Boo Radley said:

For passing it, no. For pretending it's radical liberalism, yes. Do pay attention.

Click to expand...

Socializing healthcare is liberalism. Never try to say it's something else. And don't try to pass it off as something all Republicans supported.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

shagg said:

I'm going to go ahead and assume this method of health coverage isn't new. And that fits into a larger problem that has caused a need for change. People, for whatever reason, are really really lazy when it comes to their own health care. People do not shop around for anything really or understand much of whats going on with their care, bills, coverage, and alternative options for all 3. Arguably, the government could have created an agency or program of some sort to hold peoples hands and walk them through the system down the path that lead to a good solid compromise between cost and coverage/care. No idea how much it would cost the nation, but it might have been ... more efficient than the ACA.

The fact that you'll no longer be able to do things the way you have been does not mean you have no right to choose. You can still choose from a variety of coverage options and combinations, there's just minimums that have been set now, so you can't take certain risks in exchange for lower rates. Also, Healthcare reform resulted in the ACA. If republicans were able to accept the fact that the ACA isn't going to be repealed, they might be able to make some very good improvements on it, some much needed improvements. In debate, the Nirvana Fallacy is known and recognized. Republicans seem to be committing it with their total and complete rejection of all things ACA because it isn't perfect. But they spend all their time and effort finding those imperfections (and inventing them when needed) and pushing the nations face in them.

Want to keep your plan? I'm sure it could happen under the ACA with some constructive debate and compromise. The ACA is here to stay but the details aren't written in stone. But republicans can't seem to allow anything with obamas name on it to stand, never mind participate in its successful reform and implementation. They've invested too heavily in its (and his) failure.

Click to expand...

Actually no. HSAs are specifically excluded in Obamacare because they are catastrophic only plans and all qualifying coverage has to provide for preventative care. What sucks about it is that these non qualifying plans will be discontinued, and since the savings account portion will no longer have a policy to back, the savings account will be taxed as regular income this year. Now, that may seem fair since the money that is in the account is pretaxed money, the problem with it is accumulation. So say he has been putting $10,000 a year in to it for 10 years. He didn't pay income tax on that $10K each year, but he is not going to be charged the equivalent income tax on it, he is going to pay the income tax on all $100K plus accrued interest this year which will put him into a higher tax bracket and the government will get a much bigger chunk of it. But that's OK with liberals because he is RICH and he deserves to have his stuff taken away. And when this new system falls apart he will no longer have that savings account, he will have to start all over. Also, health savings accounts are considered assets and can (could) be passed on to survivors, in effect making insurance needs and costs less for future generations. If Dad dies and leaves you a $100,000 health savings account you can afford to have a catastrophic plan with a very high deductible which would be much cheaper. Obamacare puts everybody in the investment pool forever, cradle to grave, at which point inheritance tax takes the rest of what you have spent your life earning. Who was it that recently said that we all "belong to the government"? Was that Hillary or Pelosi? It's so hard to keep up with all the stupidity...

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

tech30528 said:

Actually no. HSAs are specifically excluded in Obamacare because they are catastrophic only plans and all qualifying coverage has to provide for preventative care. What sucks about it is that these non qualifying plans will be discontinued, and since the savings account portion will no longer have a policy to back, the savings account will be taxed as regular income this year. Now, that may seem fair since the money that is in the account is pretaxed money, the problem with it is accumulation. So say he has been putting $10,000 a year in to it for 10 years. He didn't pay income tax on that $10K each year, but he is not going to be charged the equivalent income tax on it, he is going to pay the income tax on all $100K plus accrued interest this year which will put him into a higher tax bracket and the government will get a much bigger chunk of it. But that's OK with liberals because he is RICH and he deserves to have his stuff taken away. And when this new system falls apart he will no longer have that savings account, he will have to start all over. Also, health savings accounts are considered assets and can (could) be passed on to survivors, in effect making insurance needs and costs less for future generations. If Dad dies and leaves you a $100,000 health savings account you can afford to have a catastrophic plan with a very high deductible which would be much cheaper. Obamacare puts everybody in the investment pool forever, cradle to grave, at which point inheritance tax takes the rest of what you have spent your life earning. Who was it that recently said that we all "belong to the government"? Was that Hillary or Pelosi? It's so hard to keep up with all the stupidity...

Click to expand...

My understanding is that HSAs were often used in conjunction with high deductible catastrophic plans, they are not the same thing. HSAs are for routine expenses, doctor co-pays, Rx, lab work, etc.

I agree the tax situation on mr. 100k HSA isn't fair. I also think it isn't fair I have to claim my tax return from last year on this years taxes, effectively paying income tax on the same money twice. That's the way it works though, and the people who can make those changes don't care to because those problems don't really affect them.

Lets be honest about inherited HSAs, 95% of them will be cashed in soon after being inherited. Its not some kind of continuum from generation to generation. Unless you propose some way to protect these from being cashed in, the point is moot. And obviously preventing people from cashing in their inherited assets is an unnecessary restriction on freedom so......

My point was, and still is, that it's not impossible to preserve these things, to have them work the way you want them to within the ACA, if the people who represented you focused on things they can change instead of beating their head against the wall so they can show their bloody forehead to their constituents next time they're up for reelection.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

shagg said:

My understanding is that HSAs were often used in conjunction with high deductible catastrophic plans, they are not the same thing. HSAs are for routine expenses, doctor co-pays, Rx, lab work, etc.

I agree the tax situation on mr. 100k HSA isn't fair. I also think it isn't fair I have to claim my tax return from last year on this years taxes, effectively paying income tax on the same money twice. That's the way it works though, and the people who can make those changes don't care to because those problems don't really affect them.

Lets be honest about inherited HSAs, 95% of them will be cashed in soon after being inherited. Its not some kind of continuum from generation to generation. Unless you propose some way to protect these from being cashed in, the point is moot. And obviously preventing people from cashing in their inherited assets is an unnecessary restriction on freedom so......

My point was, and still is, that it's not impossible to preserve these things, to have them work the way you want them to within the ACA, if the people who represented you focused on things they can change instead of beating their head against the wall so they can show their bloody forehead to their constituents next time they're up for reelection.

Click to expand...

Right, the savings account is a part of the insurance plan and the insurance has to be in place in order for the account to exist. There is a rule concerning the time allowed to transfer insurance plans, say if you wanted to change companies, where the savings account remains protected but I don't recall how long that is. It's kind of like selling a real estate property and reinvesting the money in to another one or having to pay capital gains.

As far as cashing in a health saving account, unless something has changed since I looked at them there is no cashing in. Money in the account can only be used for qualifying medical expenses. I suppose there would be a way to dissolve it in the case of inheritance, but assuming that people will do this is no reason to not allow passing the account on to survivors. If they want to cash it out let them pay the taxes.

But I agree that it would not be impossible to preserve these things. In fact there are any number of ways to address problems within the health care field. Unfortunately it has been sold that there are only two options: The old system with it's problems or Obamacare. Even here on this forum people have stated (when presented with glaring problems with Obamacare) that, well, something needed to be done, and this is something. The assumption is that there is only one option, and it has to involve the federal government. Evidently the root of the problem is the education system, because there is a huge portion of the population that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. It's sad really, that it only took a couple of generations of dumbing people down to have enough of them going thru life as drooling idiots who, BTW, see themselves as intellectually superior, are perfectly happy giving up any semblance of liberty for the comfort of slavery. Don't believe it? Ask 10 people you know what their credit card balances are. We have been programmed to believe that we can have, actually DESERVE, anything we want whether of not we can afford it, and living in perpetual debt is not only accepted but NORMAL. When I tell people I have no credit cards, mortgage, car payments, cell phone contracts or any other debt of any kind they look at me like I have two heads.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

shagg said:

I'm going to go ahead and assume this method of health coverage isn't new. And that fits into a larger problem that has caused a need for change.

Click to expand...

Wrong. This is a specious argument. The system works quite well. It really only came into its own in the last 15 years or so. What it results in is FAR less work for me and my family. Regular medical bills don't go through a third party insurer any more. I pay on the spot with a check card linked to my HSA. The doctors charge me less because they don't have to navigate the paperwork of the third party insurer and the money goes directly to their business within 24 hours rather than 3 months, simplifying the accounting.

People, for whatever reason, are really really lazy when it comes to their own health care. People do not shop around for anything really or understand much of whats going on with their care, bills, coverage, and alternative options for all 3. Arguably, the government could have created an agency or program of some sort to hold peoples hands and walk them through the system down the path that lead to a good solid compromise between cost and coverage/care. No idea how much it would cost the nation, but it might have been ... more efficient than the ACA.

Click to expand...

BUT WHY IS THIS MY PROBLEM?! Why do you insist on making things LESS functional and MORE intrusive because people people don't know any better? Criminey, your theorized problem could have been solved far cheaper with a few PSAs.

You make a system to cater to the idiots and what you end up with is an idiotic system.

This is what we face with the ACA.

The fact that you'll no longer be able to do things the way you have been does not mean you have no right to choose.

Click to expand...

This is a very silly argument. Limiting my choice is limiting my choice. Just because I am left with a few far inferior choices doesn't make up for the fact that I can't choose what I actually want.

You can still choose from a variety of coverage options and combinations, there's just minimums that have been set now, so you can't take certain risks in exchange for lower rates.

Click to expand...

I. DON'T. WANT. THOSE. PLANS. How the hell else can I explain this to you? I had a choice of what I want, now I don't. You aren't going to be able to spin that into no loss of choice.

You like walking out of your house and not having your wallet stolen.... I put Guido and Furio on your porch to take your wallet from you when you leave your house. By your argument I have not really infringed on your rights because you can still walk out of your house.

Also, Healthcare reform resulted in the ACA. If republicans were able to accept the fact that the ACA isn't going to be repealed, they might be able to make some very good improvements on it, some much needed improvements. In debate, the Nirvana Fallacy is known and recognized. Republicans seem to be committing it with their total and complete rejection of all things ACA because it isn't perfect. But they spend all their time and effort finding those imperfections (and inventing them when needed) and pushing the nations face in them.

Click to expand...

They offered several alternative bills during the process of writing the ACA and none of them were incorporated. They have offered since then several bills to change ACA to a more open system that doesn't eliminate Catastrophic plans for people over 30, and allows for the kinds of HSAs that existed before the ACA and get no traction.

Face it, the Democrats passed a sh*t bill that you now challenge the Republicans to fix, and fault them for not fixing it. The problem is that IT WAS A SH*T BILL and shouldn't have been passed in the first place. Putting the onus on Republicans to clean up the Democrats bowel movement is absurd.

Want to keep your plan? I'm sure it could happen under the ACA with some constructive debate and compromise. The ACA is here to stay but the details aren't written in stone. But republicans can't seem to allow anything with obamas name on it to stand, never mind participate in its successful reform and implementation. They've invested too heavily in its (and his) failure.

Click to expand...

No, because what I and many many others want is effectively the abolishment of all of the onerous regulations and fees that the ACA dumped on us and our families. I choose what is good for me and my family, but that isn't the choice necessarily for another person. Essentially what I want is the granular freedom for everyone to do what they believe is best for them and theirs, and all of us, in different ways, are denied that. We need a more granular system, now a menu with four equally sh*tty options.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

jmotivator said:

You make a system to cater to the idiots and what you end up with is an idiotic system.

Click to expand...

Brilliant. Absolutely true, and brilliant.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

tech30528 said:

As far as cashing in a health saving account, unless something has changed since I looked at them there is no cashing in. Money in the account can only be used for qualifying medical expenses. I suppose there would be a way to dissolve it in the case of inheritance, but assuming that people will do this is no reason to not allow passing the account on to survivors. If they want to cash it out let them pay the taxes.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, the tax penalties would be huge anyway, something like 20-40%

But I agree that it would not be impossible to preserve these things. In fact there are any number of ways to address problems within the health care field. Unfortunately it has been sold that there are only two options: The old system with it's problems or Obamacare. Even here on this forum people have stated (when presented with glaring problems with Obamacare) that, well, something needed to be done, and this is something. The assumption is that there is only one option, and it has to involve the federal government. Evidently the root of the problem is the education system, because there is a huge portion of the population that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. It's sad really, that it only took a couple of generations of dumbing people down to have enough of them going thru life as drooling idiots who, BTW, see themselves as intellectually superior, are perfectly happy giving up any semblance of liberty for the comfort of slavery. Don't believe it? Ask 10 people you know what their credit card balances are. We have been programmed to believe that we can have, actually DESERVE, anything we want whether of not we can afford it, and living in perpetual debt is not only accepted but NORMAL. When I tell people I have no credit cards, mortgage, car payments, cell phone contracts or any other debt of any kind they look at me like I have two heads.

Click to expand...

Just to add 3 words to your statement in there, its been sold that there's only 2 options: the old system with it's problems or obamacare as it stands. I think obamacare is a much better place to start than the old system, but not where it should end as it stands. Unfortunately the right would rather pout in the schoolyard than try and contribute and balance the excesses of the left.

Navy Pride said:

Just one example on how Obama care will screw you..........Biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of this country.


One man's ObamaCare nightmare | Fox News

Click to expand...

Prior to Obamacare, the insurance companies could drop you if you have a pre-existing condition,
AFTER taking your premiums and co-payments. Now THATS a ponzi scheme!!
Ya, let's go back to that!

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

shagg said:

Fair enough, the tax penalties would be huge anyway, something like 20-40%



Just to add 3 words to your statement in there, its been sold that there's only 2 options: the old system with it's problems or obamacare as it stands. I think obamacare is a much better place to start than the old system, but not where it should end as it stands. Unfortunately the right would rather pout in the schoolyard than try and contribute and balance the excesses of the left.

Click to expand...

It would be easier to fix the old system than it would be to fix the almost 3000 page Obamacare cluster****. I don't want to fry to fix an over convoluted law, I want to throw it out and start over, and from a direction that does not have the government running the health care system.

Did you read what Jmotivator said about paying his doctor directly with his savings account? The doctor charged him less because he did not have to deal with a third party and he got paid faster. The other side of that is that the costs go down because people who are paying for their own health care will price shop. When people have insurance all they care about is the deductible.

Also, you may have noticed there is some deep division on the "right" over this. There are the traditional Republicans who have become establishment limp dicks, and there are a handful of younger conservatives (like Cruz) who are not willing to accept it. Democrats will want to group them all together because that is what they do, but I see two distinct groups here and I side with the conservatives, not the Republicans. I think it's about time we recognized the difference. We conservatives are on the right, establishment Republicans are centrists by action and comparison.

j-mac said:

No the whole purpose was to overload the current system, break it, and replace it with government controlled single payer. Classic Cloward and Piven......

Click to expand...

This is why (re C and P) the present administration has actually advertised for people to go on food stamps, and why they insist on the debt growing even greater. The plan to break the United States appears to be deliberate.

j-mac said:

That is a misleading lie. Demos didn't want to negotiate anything. Still don't.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The link has been shown to you many, many times. Sorry.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

notquiteright said:

My wife and I had Humana as private insurance- high deductible (5K), no on going health care issues, and no riders to cover the high deductible such as AFLAC.

550 a month.

We asked about a plan with riders to cover cancer and serious illness (the AFLAC style riders) well they claimed to not offer such but could put together a plan with other insurance carriers- 830 a month IIRC.

We now have a different company with riders, a dental plan, and a vision care thing.

343 a month.

You don't take the gubmint's word without question, why do you take Humana's as if it is the 11th commandment????

Like Pappa John's and that Florida franchise owner of I think it was Denny's.... They claim one thing, but simple math shows they are just being petty, partisan asses....

Click to expand...

So, the free market worked in your favor, huh?

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

ItAin'tFree said:

That study done out in Oregon shows otherwise. Health insurance/no health insurance, makes no difference in health.

Click to expand...

No difference in what? Link the study. I can better answer you then.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

American said:

Socializing healthcare is liberalism. Never try to say it's something else. And don't try to pass it off as something all Republicans supported.

Click to expand...

We haven't socialized it. We don't have UHC. UHC hasn't been proposed. so ACA doesn't qualify as socialized medicine.

So I repeat: For passing it, no. For pretending it's radical liberalism, yes. Do pay attention.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

mac said:

So, the free market worked in your favor, huh?

Click to expand...

Who is trying to claim insurance is a free market?

Only with an extreme amount of hair pulling did we finally find a new policy and quite frankly we have NO idea if better is out there, the search is exhausting- and seems to be very deliberate in making it a huge hassle to cut to the bottom line in comparing policies. The current system doesn't favor comparisons or simple terms. Have you read an insurance policy? The biggest problem is the difficulty in finding the apples in several plans to compare, and the oranges are just plain evasive!

ACA is a more uniform market where companies (that should really mean the companies that are the fingers of HUGE conglomerates) are rated and categorized in a simple easy to use format. It puts a simple label on the product. Like 'wool' socks that have the content percentage on the back. I have found 'wool' socks with less than 10% wool in them.

The ACA sets a series of standards for the insurance companies to meet so at least some of the huckster salesmanship is eliminated.

with ACA I can eliminate all the bronze, gold, platinum plans and concentrate on the silver ones- that would have been a HUGE benefit. So would the ability to see the plans in one place and not have to depend on a salesman plugging what he wants to push.

When health insurance purchasing can be as simple as new car shopping I'll be a MUCH happier camper.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

tech30528 said:

Actually no. HSAs are specifically excluded in Obamacare because they are catastrophic only plans and all qualifying coverage has to provide for preventative care.

Click to expand...

Now I don't claim to be an expert on HSA's, HRA's or FSA's, but from what I can find is that HSA's are allowed under the ACA. And the only thing I can find on your claim that accumulated HSA funds (and interest) will be taxed as income is only addressed as that which is spent on "non-medical purposes" or "over-the-counter medications not prescribed by a doctor".

Am I missing something here?

HSAs will continue to be available under the ACA, but are also subject to some new limits and restrictions. In addition to the new ban on using tax-free HSA funds to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a doctor’s prescription, the tax penalty for withdrawals of HSA funds for non-medical purposes doubled from 10% to 20% starting in 2011.
[...]
While there has been some uncertainty about whether high-deductible plans would continue to be offered under the ACA when the legislation was first passed in 2010, it now appears that HSAs will continue to be widely available going forward.

How Obamacare affects HSAs and Cafeteria Plan Accounts | US Tax Center

Click to expand...

I even found it on a site that some cons may prefer...:lol:

During the debate over Obamacare, many experts feared that its enactment would destroy Health Savings Accounts. But in a surprise turn of events, the exact opposite appears to have happened.

Health Savings Accounts: Affordable Alternative to ObamaCare

Click to expand...

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

notquiteright said:

Who is trying to claim insurance is a free market?

Only with an extreme amount of hair pulling did we finally find a new policy and quite frankly we have NO idea if better is out there, the search is exhausting- and seems to be very deliberate in making it a huge hassle to cut to the bottom line in comparing policies. The current system doesn't favor comparisons or simple terms. Have you read an insurance policy? The biggest problem is the difficulty in finding the apples in several plans to compare, and the oranges are just plain evasive!

ACA is a more uniform market where companies (that should really mean the companies that are the fingers of HUGE conglomerates) are rated and categorized in a simple easy to use format. It puts a simple label on the product. Like 'wool' socks that have the content percentage on the back. I have found 'wool' socks with less than 10% wool in them.

The ACA sets a series of standards for the insurance companies to meet so at least some of the huckster salesmanship is eliminated.

with ACA I can eliminate all the bronze, gold, platinum plans and concentrate on the silver ones- that would have been a HUGE benefit. So would the ability to see the plans in one place and not have to depend on a salesman plugging what he wants to push.

When health insurance purchasing can be as simple as new car shopping I'll be a MUCH happier camper.

Click to expand...

To use your car analogy Obamacar would would be fully loaded with every feature available whether you want it or not but you still have to pay for it all. For 2008 the government mandated that every car sold here had to have a tire pressure monitor system, ostensibly to save gas. The systems added $1200 or more to the cost of each car. Some states, like California, mandated that repair shops were required to check and record the tire pressures on every car regardless of what they came in for, but they are allowed to charge for it. It might save gas, but will it ever be enough to cover the costs to the vehicle owner?

In my shop I charge $15 for a tire rotation, if it has tire pressure monitors that do not auto locate (every manufacturer makes them different) it's $30 because once I rotate them and correct the pressures I have to put the vehicle in learn mode and use a $600 handheld tool to activate each tire pressure sensor in the correct sequence so the vehicle knows where they are. The sensors themselves cost anywhere from $80 to $150 each and they do fail. Often.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Boo Radley said:

No difference in what? Link the study. I can better answer you then.

Click to expand...

Just as I said. Having health insurance or not having health insurance makes no difference in future health problems.

I provided you with more than enough clues to find the study and it's already been linked many times before now. It's common public knowledge not an obscure study.

Spend your time finding it this time.

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

notquiteright said:

My wife and I had Humana as private insurance- high deductible (5K), no on going health care issues, and no riders to cover the high deductible such as AFLAC.

550 a month.

We asked about a plan with riders to cover cancer and serious illness (the AFLAC style riders) well they claimed to not offer such but could put together a plan with other insurance carriers- 830 a month IIRC.

We now have a different company with riders, a dental plan, and a vision care thing.

343 a month.

You don't take the gubmint's word without question, why do you take Humana's as if it is the 11th commandment????

Like Pappa John's and that Florida franchise owner of I think it was Denny's.... They claim one thing, but simple math shows they are just being petty, partisan asses....

Click to expand...

My family is self ensured, our premium went up from 580 a month to almost 800 per month. Our pharmacy benefits decreased, our copays increased, and our deductible increased. I also know many hospitals that are cutting budgets and laying off staff (job destruction) in anticipation of Obamacare.