"The difference between your 2013 rate and 2014 rate is due in part to general costs associated with the administration and delivery of health care."

That statement makes it appear that at least some of the increase isn't due to the ACA but to the same factors that have been raising premiums all along, but there are other factors, of course, related to the ACA that could make your premium rise.

Did your old policy have an annual maximum payout? A lifetime maximum?

Did it exclude health benefits that are now covered? Did it have a different deductible or total annual cost?

Since the online calculator shows a subsidy available, why not call a phone number through the ACA rather than Kaiser?

If you are not eligible for a subsidy, then you might want to investigate what plans are available outside of the exchange as well. There are probably more of them and one of them might be a better fit.

My understanding is that ALL the policies now must include maternity and neonatal care. If the previous policy didn't have that coverage, the policy would probably be more expensive. And yes, the removal of lifetime caps has a similar impact.

I had to help a young woman get insurance last year and was shocked at the differential. Only the very most expensive policies covered maternity benefits.

need more facts. are benefits the same, did you have a stripped out plan and now want a gold plan? You are not presenting the whole picture of your coverage.

what the new policy offers. The OP has the option of getting a policy which covers less like the current policy likely does.

LOL

" plan closest to my current plan will go up 60%. My current plan will not be available"

But like you said, not enough information. I too would like to hear the whole story.

to "not believe" anything that disagrees with a pre-determined pov.

The answers to your questions are in the original post:

yessiree!


I've seen lots of pre-determines here and lots are complaining about ACA, but then they complained about almost Every Single Obama Thing For Years.

since I first heard him speak...for good reason.

Not "Every Single Obama Thing For Years," lol, but all the "things" that count.

For me, that began with public education policy and extended from there. His Bush-era and neo-liberal appointees; his pro-corporate neoliberal policies; his eagerness to throw the left under the bus while he pandered to Republicans, "compromising" with them every step of the way; his hawkish efforts to continue the bogus war on "terror;" that's enough to complain about without the ACA.

The ACA? Not allowing single-payer on the table for discussion, sticking us with insurance mandates rather than care...that's worthy of complaint. The worst of the ACA, though, has nothing to do with Obama, but the people who think the way to support him or the ACA is to pretend that the ACA helps everybody, which it doesn't, or that it makes actual care more affordable, which it also doesn't, at least, not for many. Acknowledging the flaws while applauding getting SOMETHING to people who didn't have it before? THAT I can do.

Pre-determined points of view? We've all got them, so of course we've all seen them here. The point is that some ignore reality in favor of their preferred pov. Others are willing to acknowledge the gray, the ambiguous, and the contradictory.

of the ACA can be considered similar to any of the old plans. It's apples and oranges, no matter how you slice them. As Paul Krugman says, it's a fraudulent comparison.

if the plans can't be considered similar, then the people complaining about not being able to keep their old plans after being told they could have a legitimate beef. Since we're using food metaphors.

"the government won't force you off that policy" and not "the company will continue to offer that policy forever."

There are some people who have been grandfathered into the non-compliant plans they have, and maybe that's what Obama was referring to.

I understand the upset; if it were me, and I'd misinterpreted the statement, I'd be upset, too.

Meanwhile, I just want to get care. I don't want to pay more $$ for a premium and still not be able to afford care, which is why I've never been thrilled with the whole insurance mandate concept to begin with.

If more people are able to afford actual care, that's a good thing. We aren't done, though.

And we aren't done. We can't be until everyone actually has usable, affordable care.

Let's hope that the experiments the ACA is fostering in states like Vermont and Oregon (single payer and co-ops) will help lead the way to a better solution.

Insurance uses actuarial tables, and assigns risk accordingly. A life insurance policy for a 25 yr old is dirt cheap, but price the same policy for a 55+er.

They come from the government out of your taxes, not Kaiser...

insurance has the cost of insurance and calculates you tax credit. Is that different Kaiser?

It seems like this would settle the issue altogether.

- The old policies aren't legal to offer in 2014 because they incorporate unscrupulous industry practices that are now banned.

- Offering equivalent coverage without the unscrupulous practices certainly costs more. So the new policies are higher.

- If the OPer qualifies for a subsidy, he gets a much better policy for a fair price. What's the issue?

The people who have a legitimate beef are those whose policies are canceled and

a) they can't get equivalent coverage (e.g. an equivalent coverage network) on the exchange; or
b) they don't qualify for any subsidies

No subsidy for me. And that's okay. I make a good salary.
What is truly awesome, is I can pick a lower plan and probably get the same overall costs- since so much stuff was "denied" under hidden clauses in the old coverage.
Also, I'm not nearly as afraid of being unemployed. Cobra coverage was triple what they offer under the exchange. I'd be completely screwed.
And costs will come down.

people don't have to be as concerned about being denied for certain things. No one liked that kind of thing to start with. It's part of the hatred of insurance companies per se.

they lied, try to impose rule changes after the fact, etc, etc... caused her so much stress and thousands of dollars at the worst possible time. She documented everything enough for a lawsuit, including recording phone calls. But they really kicked her when she was down. I have supposedly "good coverage" but unless the doc's office specializes in paper work, someone always gets screwed- meaning me.

I am so glad I have less stress over possible layoffs too, Cobra was crazy expensive. I feel like shackles have come off for so many workers. I don't mind paying my share if it works out better for everyone.
Till we have single payer, it will be a big improvement.

I an paying $160/mo for an "meh" plan with a $3,000 deductible, but it was decent enough in that in theory I should feel safe that I'd be covered if anything bad happens... But after a couple minor issues, I realized that the insurance companies do everythign in their power to avoid paying a dime. So really, I was gambling on if I'd actually get covered or not.

With the plan I found on the exchange, it's a about $50/mo more, but it has a lower deductible and everything else is about the same, but I with the ACA I feel like it's actually a good investment.

At least now they will get a Buick

People need to consider the out-of-pocket stuff that will now be covered too..

A friend of ours had "insurance" that they were glad to pay the cheap premiums, until their 8 yr old fell out of a tree & had a complicated elbow fracture.. It ended up costing them THOUSANDS.. Those cheap premiums paid for very little...and she spent hours and hours on the phone & writing letters (only to be denied every time)

a baby at all. Fucking weasels really caused her so much added stress and expense.

Holding breath......

now get access to affordable healthcare, with no annual caps, no lifetime caps, no pre-existing clauses, etc. So, if you make enough money that you don't qualify for a subsidy, here's something for ya:

First, it's rude. Expendable income just doesn't exist much nowadays with the economy as it is, and ome people really can't afford these increases. I am fortunate, my increase is minor. I am more concerned with some of the changes in guidelines that have decreased the care for me and my family.

Secondly, you should care, because it may cost the Dems dearly.

best to ignore them. We need facts about this not PR due to the fact that people's lives are stake. So until everyone is covered in this country Progressives will not stop talking about a National HC System.

Can you tell me what care you have lost? that's a first for me considering the ACA expanded tons of services with almost no restrictions on care.

in Oregon we are insuring people like mad. The OP's State of Hawaii has expanded Medicaid and has forecast adding 45,000 uninsured to the roles.
But snark is valuable too.

Sheesh. Are you that rude in person or only behind the anonymity of an online account? That's not a rhetorical question-- I hope you think about it and try to answer it honestly.

people usually don't have a problem with it. Let me state for the record, that I stand by anything I post on DU, as I do in my offline life.

I am sick to death of whiney assed "internet liberals" who have screamed for decades about people dying in emergency rooms, and walking around like ticking time bombs for lack of access to healthcare. ACA, as imperfect as it may be, will alleviate that. Wasn't that the goal? Or was it just another phoney ideological argument to make people think they actually cared?

NO. I don't give a shit about a whole bunch of belly aching, and nitpicking every decision by this administration by a bunch of malcontents who can't win elections, whether that be the shrinking Tea Party coalition, or that faction of the left who's never satisfied with anything.

Here's a notion: Why don't we, instead of joining the chorus of Teabaggin' assholes that continue to do everything in their power to ensure ACA's failure, why don't we show some patience, and actually pretend to give a shit that millions will now have access to something as basic as food & shelter, in the form of healthcare access. True liberals care about that, and most don't give a shit that they might pay a little more so that others less fortunate now have access to the same quality healthcare that they've enjoyed and taken for granted.

Here's the chance for you & the o.p. to literally "put your money where your mouth is".

I appreciate your courage in showing everyone your true colors

You have to compare the two plans. If your old plan covered less and had higher deductibles and out of pocket expenses than the new plan you have to factor those costs into the comparison too.

...it's hard to see that as progress. If the OP chooses the more expensive plan with better coverage that's one thing, but if the plan she'd choose is being phased out due to ACA requirements, the extra coverage might not be what she really needs.

Disclaimer-- I have a good union job, with excellent health insurance obtained through collective bargaining. Everyone should have good health insurance at no or low cost to them.

If the op is buying on his own he is not compelled to use his current shitty insurance company at all. He can shop around via the exchange for his state or the federal exchange if he has to use that, when it works. I really hate our health care system but I'm thinking I despise blaming the ACA for its shittyness even more.

For example, if something was $1 and now it's $1.10 and we used your method, it would result in a 90% increase, which is clearly not the case.

You have to divide the amount the number has increased by the old price.

To find your percent increase take the new price, minus the old price then devide that number by the new price and multiply that number by 100.

Example 500-300=200. 200/500x100=percent increase.

If this is more common than not, Dems will take a big hit in 2014 elections.

I know some people are going to pay less, even without the subsidies, but so far I haven't run into any of those.

Two families I know will be uninsured next year - they are not going to go for the catastrophic policies, because they can't meet the deductible - they don't have enough savings. So they are going to take what they would have paid for the insurance premium and save it and then hope to get insurance later when they have the cash fund that will get them access. If you have to buy the catastrophic policy, you really need to have 10K on hand always in a medical fund.

It's a mixed bag, but those who don't even get the subsidies for the premiums are sometimes going to lose insurance entirely. These policies are great for the low-income families and individuals who get the subsidy plus the cost-sharing, but for families who get the subsidy only, they are going to have to save a lot of money to deal with the deductibles. Oddly enough, those who seem most upset are those who are getting the subsidy but freaking about the family deductible.

Also the offerings vary hugely by area - in areas with a lot of older persons I guess the rates are not being implicitly subsidized by the young, and some of those areas are rural with only one or two insurance carriers in the exchange, so that's that. It does seem like premiums are lower in areas with more competition.

So why are they doing it that way?

Did they have coverage before? If they had only catastrophic coverage before, wouldn't they already have had the $10K you say they need put aside?

years, your deductible resets every year on January 1. So, let's say you get cancer and are on some kind of surgery/chemo/radiation treatment and monitoring afterwards. Come January 1, your deductible starts all over again.

Many people don't really understand this. You don't need to cover a one-time deductible only one time. You may need to cover it each and every year.

that many people will be eligible for tax credits that will help them pay for out of pocket costs, including deductibles. These tax credits won't have to wait till taxes are filed, either. For eligible people, they will be available in January, with the government paying the amount of the credit directly to the insurer.

I don't know what you are talking about.

I got them mixed up. Thank you.

But the fact that does remain is you can't compare apples and oranges. The DUers new policy isn't comparable to her old one and very well could have benefits that are important to her.

Yeah they get a better more expensive policy that they can't afford to leverage.

...

pocket for medical expenses. I thought you meant that there was a tax credit for the deductible and OOP medical expenses too, in addition to the tax credit/subsidy for monthly premiums.

But thanks for taking the time to post that - i had hoped there might be something I had missed to take the bite out of these plans capped $6300 annual out of pocket costs, same for some of the higher deductible plans available. But appears not to be the case.

The example couple I gave, who are in their 50s, could buy a pretty similar insurance policy in 2013 for less than $500 a month. Yes, it's has a similar deductible, slightly higher, but instead of paying more than $1,700 a month they would have to pay less than $500 a month. The difference more than funds the entire deductible.

For a lower deductible than the ACA policy, they would pay about $940 a month - a lot less than the over $1,700. That policy also has vision, which the ACA does not. Of course the ACA policy has maternity coverage, which would be of little use to this couple.

The bottom line is that some middle income people, until they figure out how to work the system (and believe me, they will), are going to lose their insurance. The screaming lack of compassion demonstrated on this thread over this issue suggests to me that no attempt to rework the law to offer them any options is in the offing.

Yes, ACA WILL help many. It is also going to inflict real damage on many. There are an awful lot of older couples out there like this. At this point we'd better get the exchanges working well to limit the damage.

I can tell you that the banks are crapping their britches right now, because they are expecting rising consumer defaults due to this law among borrowers who they considered "safe".

for most insurance -- mine, for example -- is that paying the deductible can take place over several months, as our individual health costs add up and are counted toward it. But it's not like we have to have the amount of the whole deductible set aside each year before we can make any use of our insurance. If we have a $200 charge for an appointment, then we pay that $200 and it counts toward the deductible. We don't have to have $10,000 saved up in order to have an appointment -- just enough to pay for that appointment.

The exception, of course, would be if you had a sudden medical cost that was more than the deductible. Then, yes, you would have to pay the whole deductible first. But that's not usually how it works out.

The policy most people in their 50's could buy in 2013 for less than $500 a month would not be similar to anything available now under the ACA. Paul Krugman says that to make such a claim is "fraudulent." Most 50 year olds have some preexisting condition that will increase their premiums, and until the ACA most policies had annual and lifetime limits which could be reached with one major car accident or cancer diagnosis. And people who developed serious illnesses could be dropped from the policies they had paid into for decades. Whatever policy your example-couple had before was NOT comparable to what they will be able to buy starting in 2014.

on the plan I chose were 1800/per with a 2900/max for a Silver plan with $25 copays.

I really, REALLY think people need to shop for themselves.

It also looks like some of the more rural areas have one or two carriers and higher costs.

It varies. That's the point.

-- stories that leave out things like subsidies and tax credits, for example.

I'm NOT saying that's what you did. I'm saying that everyone needs to check these things out for themselves. Some people twist their stories around to suit their purpose -- like the lawyer in the LA Times article. She was saying she couldn't afford (on an 80K income) a payment rise from $98 to $238. But her new policy -- unlike her old one -- would cover full maternity benefits, including free prenatal care. And she's pregnant! It will actually cost her significantly less to pay the $238 premiums, but she was pretending otherwise. And the LA Times was using her to highlight its story about people suffering from the ACA -- though pregnant women are among the groups who will benefit the most.

I am one of them.

And I wouldn't believe a thing from a Kaiser calculator.

I think the experience varies around the country.

If people get value for their money, they will be okay with it...

I am with Kaiser too, and they have had a hefty increase in premiums due to that ACA, per their letter. It will not increase benefits to me, I already had great benefits, etc.

It has however resulted in decreased care for my father, openely being discouraged from some preventative care due to his age, which, actually, they have not thought out carefully. We could have overridden the doctor, but my dad is the type that listens to his doctors, even when they are wrong. I just hope that this doesn't cause more suffering when hi time comes, I've seen it on the cancer forum, and he does not deserve that. I wouls share more details, but this are his private matters, I am just so angry from our appt this week. I understand the medical concerns of the elderly, and this one should have been a no brainer.

I will still vote for the Dems in 2014, because any alternative has historically been shown to be unacceptable.

recommended due to age.

My mother, who is over 80, keeps complaining that her doctor doesn't want her to do colonoscopies anymore. But the research has shown that at her age, she's more likely to end up with a perforated colon than a cancerous polyp that would kill her.

There are probably other preventative studies they no longer do for similar reasons.

there are other procedures that are effective but they cost pennies compared to colonoscopies.

That was the government estimate, at least.

Frankly, if somebody makes more than that, I really am not interested in hearing any whining from them.

4 times the poverty level for just 1 person is a big ole whopping $46,000.00. That's not that much by the time you factor in a home or rent payment, utilities, increasing food and gas prices, a car payment, mandatory car and auto insurance, student loans (which are now becoming disastrously large) ... and to top it all off, larger healthcare premiums and deductibles. I run people's budgets all the time as a bankruptcy attorney, and often times, it's that $300 extra expense per month that tips them from a positive cash flow (there's money to save) to a negative cash flow (they're heading towards bankruptcy).

I can tell you that $46,000/yr is not living it up for even 1 person.

Now say that person making 46,000 is paying child support of $500/month on top of everything. Because the child does not live with them, the child will not apply in calculating their eligibility for a subsidy, which maybe it should. You have just pushed that individual over the edge budget wise by forcing him to pay more for his health care.

Your comments suggest that ... so long as you get your break on healthcare, you're alright sticking it to people of average means. How simply Republican of you.

I just looked them up quickly and Wikipedia had it at $11,000 per year for a household of 1.

So yeah, if it's actually $8,000 and 4 times that is $32,000 ... then you're talking about being cut off from subsidy support a very low number. $32,000 is nothing if you pay even modest rent and have a modest car payment. Generally, the budgets I put together for people at that income level can't even afford health care ... must less if its at $300/month.

It may be possible where I live, but I just read an article on here about the average rent for an apartment in SF being $3k/mo. Eeeek.

Which isn't to say I think the individual mandate should go away. In fact, I think the opposite, but I don't agree that people making $32k/yr are living large and don't deserve any sympathy.

I'm not saying that a person can't live on $32,000 per year. But, if you're single, with nobody else to help out, you're going to basically be spending everything you have to exist nowadays. You're not going to be able to save up a lot, you'll be crushed if a big ticket event (new roof) occurs, and you'll be living paycheck-to-paycheck. Now, since you're going to be above the subsidy level, if you get stuck with premiums of $350/month ... that's going to be huge, huge dent in your finances. It would not be easy for my clients to absorb that extra. That's 13% (close to 1/7th) of their budget.

That seems a bit high though. I found a plan for myself that is about $240/mo, which is about $70 more than what I was paying before. I make more than $32k, but not a whole lot more right now. Which sucks, but I'm betting most people single people who live in my area could make it without too much issue. They can also get a cheaper bronze plan that will offer at least some coverage. One thing is that without insurance, they will be out a lot more money if they get sick or hurt. Which in turn ends up costing us all money in the long run if they can't pay for it.

will have no health costs if they don't pay for insurance.

I think spending your time helping so many people who couldn't manage their money has affected your point of view. While I know that many people come to bankruptcy because of unavoidable issues like job loss, others have gotten in over their heads because they're spending too much on optional expenses and not enough on things like health insurance.

It's hard to generalize about my clients, because many do have their own issues.

Many ... temporary or permanent job loss. The temporary job loss often leads to overuse of credit cards to keep afloat. Then, that can cause problems when (and if) they do get back to work.

Many ... drop in income (lost overtime, reduced hours).

Some ... clear mismanagement or overextending on credit cards (most people are actually better than you think in this regard). Its more likely that the credit cards got away from them when they had to use them in an emergency.

Some ... strategic ... they've overpaid on their house and need to get out from underneath it. They could keep their homes if they *really* wanted to. But its just doesn't make good economic sense for them.

Some ... the financial ruin of divorce.

Some ... hit retirement, and couldn't adjust to the income drop.

Rising ... student loan issues.

Seems that very little are actually medical bankruptcies. I have had some who were done in by medical bills - but not near as much as one might think. Kind of surprising actually. At least not so many medical bankruptcies in my area, and I'm in the Detroit metro area with many clients from Detroit.

Also, like I said, not so much mismanagement of money as one might think. More sudden job loss and the problems that stem from that. People are very embarrassed to file for bankruptcy and they DO NOT like it. They'll blow through their 401k (which they could protect entirely) before they'll file ... I've had people blow through 150k of 401k retirement just to save their house. If there's one aspect of this where there is mismanagement ... its the stubborn refusal to walk into my office at the first sign of trouble so that I can protect their assets.

did so because of medical bills. With the others, it was real estate. One got over his head in real estate investments and the market crashed; and the other was a builder who mis-timed the market and who also wasn't good at managing money.

there are no subsidies, as in not a single solitary dollar of subsidy, for those who would have been covered by the expansion of Medicare. Those people make 1.5 times the poverty level or less.

It's supposed to be figured as if their income was 100% of FPL. I just looked up the code for another purpose, and it's in there.

because that would be a huge change from what has been repeatedly stated in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling.

Which may be a the right number, I don't know... Depending on where you live, that might not be a whole lot of money. It could be like making $8/hr in other parts of the country.

Cost-sharing helps lower income families out with the higher deductibles and copays for 70/30 actuarial share insurance, which is what ACA covers for those not on Medicaid/SS. Effectively that ends at 200% of the FPL, although there is a minor subsidy up to 250% of FPL (but from 200-250% FPL it is minimal - 73/27).

Premium subsidies run up until 400% of FPL. After that there is nothing. Most younger people/couples can afford it, because the young pay up to 1/3rd of what an older person would. Some young people with high student loans won't be able to afford it, because the subsidy is figured on MAGI instead of AGI, so they have to add back their student loans.

But older couples mostly are who will be affected, and some families. For example, the lowest Silver premium for a couple aged 58 and 57 with a combined income of 63K will be $1,647 a month for a family deductible of $6,000 and an OOP of $7,200.

Now, if they had a combined income of 62K, they would qualify for the subsidy and the lowest cost premium would be $418 a month. Such a couple will not be fined for not having insurance, because the premium for the lowest cost ACA policy will be $1,124 a month, or more than 20% of their income. That is better than the 31% of income they will pay for the lowest Silver policy, but they have a $12,700 deductible each year before that catastrophic policy pays a dime. Thus, if they need medical care, the catastrophic policy requires them to spend more than $26,000 of their own money before they can get any help with medical expenses.

So ACA policies are not affordable for some people. Not even remotely. That is mostly the case for older people - if this couple were say 25 and 27, the lowest cost Silver policy would be $678 a month, which they could do.

But for many older couples, they need to cut their income down now before they can afford insurance.

I can't prove that yet, because I'm still waiting for the ACA website to heal up.

I don't read this person as bashing Obama, or bashing the ACA even. They're just giving us a reality check about Hawaii.

Seemingly "because" of the ACA, many people in my state of NC are seeing rate increases, the elimination of the state's prior more affordable premium health exchange, and the declination of expanded Medicaid to cover the gap for 500,000 of us who don't qualify for any subsidized plans from the TWO health insurance providers.

Although ACA will provide many benefits, in NC the GOP has deliberately orchestrated things so that the implementation of ACA will make things worse for people in as many ways as possible. Mainly, there's not enough meaningful competition here to drive rates down, and another 500k otherwise Medicaid-eligible folks who can't be covered unless they pay full price (without subsidies).

This is the GOP's fault. That are doing everything they can to sabotage the ACA. I really don't think they care how many people die as long as they can stick it to Obama and the Democrats.

Maybe there's a GOP in Hawaii that's similarly trying to sabotage things? I don't know the politics in that state.

I sure hope that if I post that my insurance options (I'm on student health insurance now) come June 2014 are non-existent because they didn't expand Medicaid in my state, I won't be attacked as being an Obama-basher.

They still can't afford to access healthcare, even if they are paying more for a better policy.

All of the costs have to be taken into consideration. These high deductible plans make people less likely to go to a doctor because they can't afford another cent over what they pay for premiums.

What use is a policy if the deducible is $6000 per year and the family is of modest means. Ok, so the premium is supported ... but the deductible isn't. So great, they paid $50/month for the premium. Woop de doo. So now, one of their kids comes down with something truly serious that requires expensive medication. They have to pay on average $500/month before the insurance kicks in. If the family is poor - where'd they get that extra $500/month? And that's PER YEAR.

Guess, what, they're coming to me for bankruptcy. Thought that's what this was supposed to stop.

Actually, Obamacare may turn out to be good for my business, sadly.

Ok, so the premium is supported ... but the deductible isn't. So great, they paid $50/month for the premium.

No worries about pre-existing conditions and coverage of things that wouldn't have been covered before.

They used to leave out certain things - mental health, for example. I had a policy that didn't cover that.

The things the ACA makes them cover are things people wanted them to have to cover anyway.

If you are not getting the subsidy and now you can't afford to buy insurance at all, then you are not thinking this is a solution.

the subsidies mask the real problem...

...which is that the ACA entrenches the obscene, bloodsucking profit-driven middleman structure of health insurance into our health care system without any serious cost controls. By the design of the corporatists who created it, it guarantees outrageous profits to the insurance companies for merely standing between us and our doctors. Yes, the subsidies help individuals, but they are still funded by our tax dollars, and every dollar that is funneled into the pockets of health care CEO's is a dollar that is not going to education and roads and community services. Or actual health care.

We need real reform that reduces costs and eliminates the middlemen and the profit motive. Health care should not exist as a profit venture for billionaires. It should be designed first and foremost for the health and well being of a country and its citizens. We need single payer.

And it's a wise thing to do.

Same as Social Security - they take it out of your check because most people won't be that provident. Same here.

That's what the mandate does - says spend the $$ being covered on these things rather than buying something else with that money.

The way these plans are structured as high deductible plans ie, a family policy deductible + premiums can be over 17K with no subsidy.

These are costs people are taking into consideration. This 17K comes out after taxes as part of their net income.

I think people must be living in a world I don't recognize if they just think this is all hunky dory.

Get fucking insurance companies off our god damned backs. Healthcare is a right, not based on what you can afford. People will be paying more for healthcare they cannot afford to access and this is where the whole thing begins to breakdown. I really think if those who think this will lead to single payer believe it, they ought to be acknowledging these deficiencies.

I am glad more people will be covered, but to berate people who tell you it's not working for them, as I see happening in this thread is way more divisive than it would be to work on these problems and make it better for ALL!

People who can't afford it get subsidies. People who can afford are getting better insurance. Without pre-existing conditions or getting cancelled to worry about.

Who is berating anyone? We will at least all be covered, (exceptions for people in red states whose income doesn't allow for it per red state standards) and that was the point. Higher incomes might have to pay even more for a single payer system, yet we claim we want that.

Nothing has changed for them but a higher premium. Their access to healthcare didn't increase with this higher premium. I think this is what many people are missing.

People will be covered for catastrophic events, which is what they had with their older/cheaper similar high deductible plan.

Good on pre-existing conditions and caps. But that doesn't increase their access to healthcare. It's still too expensive for many, that's why they had shitty high deductible plans prior.

That they can't be kicked off of for a serious illness and then be stuck with pre-existing conditions.

And it will cover things that people always want covered, and get pissed when they find is not covered. So it is by definition better than what they had before.

The higher your income, the less a problem the deductible is.

insurance plan could cost them 17K a year. This is ridiculous. Face the issue, make it better. Don't freaking ignore it.

I thought we were liberals on this board, who care about all and wanted something better for all.

I don't hate the ACA. There is some good to it. But to tell people to take 35% of their net income to afford good healthcare is beyond the pale, imho.

aren't you getting close to 100k of medical services? Then the rest of the year its free with no limit?

It's almost as though copays and deductibles and skyrocketing medication costs and uncovered dental and ophthalmological expenses and dropping wages and escalating food and rent and housing and gas prices didn't exist.

"If you are not getting the subsidy you can afford it."

What a comfortable, condescending, imaginary world the Third Way inhabits.

None of that is as big a problem for higher income people, but with the ACA they too won't have to worry about pre-existing conditions and cancellation. People who make that much aren't worried about the next rent payment. People worried about that qualify for subsidies.

This is the attitude we have come to expect from corporatists in both parties. This is what happens when corporate interests drive parties and government, and the goals of the parties change from serving the interests of people to the interests of corporations.

It is downright bizarre to think that someone making 4 times the poverty level is just killing it. Imagine a single mother with 1 child. Four times the poverty level is $60,000. Folks, that's not that much if you consider that the mother may be paying $200/week just for child care. That's $10,000 per year that just went out the door. Payroll/income taxes, depending on where you live, take another 20% right off the top ($12,000 between social security, federal income taxes, and state income taxes). Take out another $800 for rent per month - another $10,000/yr. So that's half of her income, just for daycare, rent, and taxes! That leaves her with $28,000 to divide up between a car payment, gas, utilities, food, cell phone, internet, cable, water, clothes, etc. That's roughly $540/week for all of that. Oh, and one of those checks just went for the student loans she's paying. Oops, that's now about $415/week on average to pay for everything else she needs to pay for. Heaven forbid she need a new roof - didn't have enough money to save up for that.

The next big crash coming (if not Obamacare), are student loans. They are CRUSHING people's finances. I am now seeing people walking in with $50,000 to $100,000 in student loans for jobs that pay $15/hr.

Pile student loans on to increased health care payments ... it's grim.