Out of a total income of 80k a year - So, thats about 3.57% of your yearly income for a years worth of healthcare.

So round it up - 4%. If you can't spare 4% of your income for health care, then you really have a issue with managing your money.

You pay health care insurance costs out of take home pay.

the frippery they are spending that money on now.

You can instruct them on the "frippery" they are spending their money on. It will be an invaluable service I'm sure.

She is getting a great deal for her $140 a month in increased premium. The article is completely distorting her situation.

Her old policy covered no maternity benefits (almost none of the individual policies did, and none of the cheap ones). Now she will get free prenatal visits over the course of her pregnancy, and her labor and delivery costs and any hospitalization costs and any other maternity-related costs will be covered as medically necessary expenses. She won't have to worry about hitting any annual or lifetime limits on her coverage, if she should develop any serious problems during the pregnancy, and she won't have to worry about a premature baby being deemed to have a "preexisting condition."

As a pregnant person dependent on individual coverage, she is one of the people who will benefit the most from the law.

I don't feel one bit sorry for her. She should be thanking everyone who pushed for the ACA.

Personally, when I see a bunch of dirt poor, sick old people dying of neglect, I have a hard time working up too much sweat over someone making 80K a year, even if that is before taxes. Boo hoo. At least her last meal won't be a can of cat food before she commits suicide.

They cannot decide how much they value health insurance over other expenses. Saying that can decide implies that they could choose to not take part in the insurance system. One of the major points of ACA is to take that decision away from them; they must get insurance so that we can all get insurance. It isn't their decision anymore.

There are winners and losers. More winner than losers. But there are losers.

yet stuff like that happens to even the healthiest young people and then of course she would be an instant loser under her heretofore winner policy. And if she somehow welshed on the bill, we would all be losers. This kind of situation is one of the reasons health care is so expensive in our country as opposed to every other developed nation in the world with their universal, single payer health care.

At least under the ACA this kind of situation would be a win/win for all of the people.

Call us every commie, socialist, obamabot name in the book before you could get them to admit it

Off the top of my head, the following countries do not have single-payer.

France
Japan
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland

Not criticizing single-payer per se, but people forget that it isn't the only way to have universal health care.

I meant money that is collected by the government in taxes and funnelled to non-profit entities that provide the actual care as well as a national health service where the government collects the money and delivers the service, a la U.K.

Germany and Japan, for example, both have universal healthcare. Both of their systems rely heavily on private insurance bought by individuals (or their employers). Neither of them are based on the idea of the government collecting the money and providing (or paying for) the services.

Again, not criticizing single-payer. There are countries where it exists and it works. Just pointing out that some successful health-care systems don't require single payer to be effective.

here, according to wikipedia: According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004

The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance programme administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage. Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.

This is what I am talking about. There is some private insurance in those countries but by far the government funds the larger amount. And how else does the government fund it if not through taxes?

Whoever wrote those posts on Wikipedia is wrong.

Take Japan for example. Yes, for many people there is a 30% copayment for health services with insurance picking up the other 70%. But it is incorrect to say that the 70% is "government paid". (Additionally, that 30% isn't an absolute number. Some people have a 10% or 20% copay, and there are out-of-pocket limits).

Here is an english-language document from the Japanese Ministry of Health that explains their system in more detail. Page 3 of that document has a breakdown of how the healthcare system is funded. It is as follows:

25.3% = Japanese government.
12.1% = Local government.
13.9% = Patient copayments.
28.3% = Patient insurance payments.
20.3% = Employer insurance payments.

I assume that "government-managed" means directed by the government (some federal and some local based on the wording in the charts). "Associaiton" to me has the American connotation of private welfare not for profit organizations. Does this "association" get all of its funding from private individuals (charitable contributions)? Is there any government involved, even indirectly, in them?

If employer insurance is 20.3%, then I assume that Patient copayments and Patient insurance payments are borne entirely (without any subsidy)by employees of private corporations, right? What is involved in this? Does the corporation receive any tax benefits for providing this insurance? Are there laws in place that forbid denying health insurance because of pre-existing conditions? You mention out of pocket limits, who picks up the remainder?

The point I am getting to here is how much is "actual" payment by the government for citizens' health care and how much is "actual" payment solely by the employee?

I can't go into all those answers, but I think your last question about "actual" payment was pretty much answered in my previous post.

I do want to point out one very key difference between their system and ours. In Japan the government sets the price of all procedures, and those prices do not change based on payment type. Regardless of whether you have private insurance, government insurance, or old-age insurance the Doctor is going to be reimbursed the same.

These reimbursements are low by US standards, and the way they are structured has shaped the Japanese health system in certain ways. Generally speaking it is hard for a Doctor to get rich (or his clinic to show a profit) based on reimbursements for services. One exception is that reimbursements for prescriptions tend to be about 6x the actual price of the drug, so there is profit in filling prescriptions. Because of this, almost all Doctors fill their own prescriptions right in their clinics, and prescriptions amount to about 30% of total health care spending. Another effect is that the richest Doctors in Japan are the general-care physicians, because they have the most opportunities to fill your prescriptions. In Japan the "specialists" don't do as well financially as the general care practitioners, which is somewhat the opposite of here.

All of this is somewhat of a tangent. The real point I was trying to make is that many countries have successful universal health coverage without being single payer systems.

is significant government involvement one way or the other. I am assuming also that in Japan citizens don't die from lack of health care due to not being able to afford it or a pre-existing condition...

I never said there wasn't significant government involvement. All of my examples of non-single payer systems (France, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland) have significant government involvement.

> I am assuming also that in Japan citizens don't die from lack of health care due to not being able to afford it or a pre-existing condition.

Pre-existing conditions can not be used to disallow coverage.

Despite insurance being "mandatory" it is possible to be uninsured. That means you are responsible for making your own payments. There are also things that insurance does not cover; for example if you injure yourself as the result of drunk driving insurance will not cover it, nor does it cover injuries received as part of a suicide attempt.

health insurance in different countries and I am grateful for your help. I was using "single-payer" as shorthand for universal health care financed primarily (but not entirely) by government. IOW, government provided a healthy amount of the insurance and people could buy "extras" in the private health insurance markets in their country. That was really my point. But I see what you are saying, also.

I would be thrilled with the health care provided by most European countries and probably in Asia as well. Of course, as a senior, I have Medicare. IMHO, it would have been better for Obama to simply expand Medicare to everyone rather than this rather complicated ACA. The architecture for Medicare was already there and it would have been a much easier lift, except politically. The people would have loved it, just as they love Medicare for either themselves or for their parents, and the transition would have been MUCH smoother and easier...

No worries, with the ACA we are going to get there...it won't take long, after we take back the House in 2014...

Good, affordable, safe health care for everyone - regardless of their personal circumstances.

I thought self-employed can take health insurance off the top, as a business expense.

I haven't examined this couple's income and expenses as well as everything in their home as the other posters here have. You would have to ask them, they have all the information on this couple.

... and "self-employed" has specific meaning for tax purposes, that certain things are clearly valid business expenses.

And it's not dependent on wealth, income, expenses, or the furnishings in their home.

If anyone has all the information on this couple, it'll be their tax accountant.

Yep. It's "Cry Me a River" time.

Income will get you a shack with a swamp cooler

to judge others' ability to manage their money without all the relevant information. But that seems to be par for the course for those whose only concern is ACA PR.

For the record, my insurance costs about 20% of my annual salary, and I make significantly less than 80,000 a year. Then, after the insurance, there is still the care to pay for, because insurance doesn't equal care, and care still costs.

I can get a cheaper premium on the exchange, if I want to give up what my employer contributes to that premium. That, though, would cost me more than I pay now, and the cheaper premiums come with significantly higher deductibles and copays, so actual care would cost MUCH more.

Pretending that insurance is affordable for those who don't qualify for subsidies, let alone actual care, is dishonest. To say the least.

unlike her old cheapo policy. The free prenatal visits alone will offset her increased premiums -- and that doesn't even include her labor and delivery costs or any costs related to problems that develop before or after the pregnancy. She won't have to worry about hitting any annual or lifetime limits if she or her baby develops any serious problems, and she won't have to worry that if her baby is born with a "preexisting condition" that it will never be eligible for coverage.

That woman, since she's dependent on individual insurance, should be thanking her lucky stars that the ACA was passed soon enough to cover her and her baby.

"That woman" is one example; the article is about "thousands."

The article also does not say anything at all about what her "cheapo" policy did or did not cover, so your unfounded assumptions about prenatal care and offset premiums are simply speculation.

The article does say

benefits for that price because I researched them a year ago for a young woman -- and the only private, individual policies that covered maternity benefits were without exception at the top end, and cost at least $300 dollars, even for a young woman.

It's YOUR assumption that is completely unfounded.

People who are not insured or severely underinsured, as the woman in the OP was, add to the premium costs of the rest of us, and in the least cost-efficient way possible, through high emergency room costs.

I don't think my understanding of insurance and maternity costs are unfounded.

since anyone could get a policy that included maternity coverage for less than $100 a month.

At the time that I left, my employer provided insurance covered 100% of anything I needed, with no deductible, and the only copay was $8 for prescriptions. That certainly wasn't a "cheapo" plan, of course, and I didn't have that kind of coverage when I had my children. Prenatal and maternity care was still covered, though.

was so critical (or single payer). People dependent on the individual market have always had very limited options.

Employer groups make up their own mixed risk pools, which allow insurers to subsidize the older, or less healthy employees with the younger, healthier ones. With people in the individual market -- prior to the ACA as of January -- everything was different. The insurers tried to charge individual customers by the likelihood that they would need expensive care, and they banned many completely based on "preexisting conditions." The insurers also limited their risk exposure by avoiding certain types of coverage.

Maternity coverage was routinely excluded from individual coverage, even in perfectly healthy women. When it was offered, healthy women had to pay a significant premium beyond what healthy men in their age group had to pay.

Now, for the first time, insurers have to treat all individual customers as part of a large risk pool -- just like an employer group. And they can't charge extra for maternity benefits or any other of the Essential benefits.

So the woman in the OP is going to benefit greatly. For $140 a month more, she's going to have all her maternity benefits paid. She's one of the clear winners under the ACA.

These people don't realize how ridiculous they sound with this "sticker shock." Try looking for health insurance with a preexisting condition 4 years ago and finding out that it was $!450 a month with a ridiculous deductible. Sorry but that ain't sticker shock, Jennifer darling.

Raised their rates tremendously. Anywhere from 15 to 55%.
Citation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/business/despite-new-health-law-some-see-sharp-rise-in-premiums.html?_r=0

Also and something that needs to be considered before you make such a statement: in California, people pay a whole lot more to rent. Even with the collapse in housing prices, renting is very costly.

People who live comfortably on $ 30,000 in the Southeastern states would have to live in their camper in order to survive, in San Diego, LA or San Francisco Bay area, as big city rental situation would lock them out of housing.

They are not having this issue with their insurance rates. I call a bit of BS (more than a bit) on the part of the LA Times. Sorry...that's a great premium, no matter where you live.

Do they have special needs not included in tax table deductions?

No two people's situations are the same. When I last lived in the SF Cay area, circa 2000-05, my spouse's salary was what we lived on, some 52K a yr. And I supplemented it with a small amount of $$ inherited in the final years we lived there. We were able to afford his health insurance and pension plan, but we had an under priced apartment (only $ 500 a month) in a safe and pretty neighborhood, (which most people can only dream of having), and still things monetarily speaking were always very tight. And we had no children living at home.

I think that it used to be a Republican meme that people who don't have the money for necessities, and that people who can't pay what the "normal official viewpoint in Washington DC says they should pay" as they are paying for a luxury car etc, (That Welfare Cadillac) but now that happens to be the Democratic mindset as well. SHAME!!

All I can think is - whatever happened to real Democratic mindset?

Over 71% of all Americans are unsure of or actively dislike this Healthcare policy. And that is a stat gleaned from Bill Maher, who is hardly anti-Obama.

Very much like winning the lottery.

Two bedrooms, set inside a landscaped garden that the elderly Portuguese landlord tended himself.

When the place was sold for 3.1 million bucks at the height of the housing bubble, we really had to face the reality of what a 'real rental price" for SF Bay area was. And since our money would not allow us to afford this dream place's replacement, we moved north to a rural area.

Although we are again surrounded by wonderful and lush natural setting, we are paying twice as much in rent now. (Not complaining, as we love our place, but it does remind me of how lucky we were back then.)

They are raising two girls. They rent a 3 bedroom home, but they don't rent by zip code as so many in CA tend to do. My brother works in the film industry (which can be very feast or famine), so they budget.

"Whatever happened to real Democratic mindset?" That is not very nice. I'm not calling you not a Democrat since I think you're falling for a line put out there by a Republican leaning paper.

All I know is that that is a damned good premium.

I am on a fixed income (SS Survivor's benefits)
Feeding my teenaged son currently costs more a month than the premium I have been quoted ($176.19/ month).
I just finished off paying for my car (a 2008 Saturn Outlook). I hope to own that car for at least another 5-10 years.
I clip coupons. I shop sales.
Budgeting is what I do to provide a decent life for us. If they can't swing $238/month for healthcare, I really wonder where they are spending their money.
Luckily the coverage is now better, and their baby-to-be will be covered.
What's a horrible premium? The $1450K/month this Democrat with a preexisting condition was quoted 4 years ago.

people who won't have the extra $ 200 a month to buy the mandated product?? Either she is not a successful lawyer, or you don't understand the group of people I am talking about - those in the $ 21K to 42 bracket and living in an expensive part of the county.

Even people who considered themselves doing okay several years ago, they are complaining about this, as the inflation most of us are dealing with at the grocery stores means that extra $ 200 a month is going into food costs.

Nice little slam on her though, on edit, if she was a lawyer. You try and have a relaxing weekend now.

I guess you have been through their home checking out exactly what they can afford.

Gosh, how I wish I was making 80k a year. The way I budget, I would have been able to afford the 1450 a month that the high risk pools were for me.

they can afford to have a baby WITH this insurance.

The cost of their increased premium -- $140 a month -- will be offset by the free prenatal care she will now receive. All the other benefits she will now get from her policy -- coverage of her labor and delivery and any other medically necessary costs, including any necessary hospitalization, will be gravy.

And she won't have to worry that if she ends up in a high risk pregnancy her financial world will collapse. She won't be subject to annual or lifetime limits and her insurer won't be able to drop her. And her baby won't be excluded from coverage if the baby is born with a "preexisting condition."

She is SO much better off now, I'm thinking she is a Republican plant. No pregnant lawyer with any degree of intelligence could think she'd be better off with a health insurance policy that didn't cover maternity care.

That rate should be affordable, depending on what other optional costs they have. But some people would rather spend their money on big car payments rather than decent health coverage.

But they don't pay for cable TV -- just for internet. And they drive old cars.

The woman in the OP is pregnant and she's saying she can't afford $138 in higher premiums -- that will come with FREE MATERNITY CARE VISITS! And will now cover labor and delivery costs at the end (or hospitalization before then, if medically necessary). And will mean her baby can't be born with a "preexisting condition."

This woman is supposedly a lawyer. I feel sorry for her clients, if this is any evidence of her basic thinking skills.

There is no way her cheapo policy covered maternity benefits (hardly any of the individual plans did before). She is one of the people who will benefit most directly from the law. What an idiot.

What people don't realize is that the real middle class mostly have the same story...which makes the $238 being horrible that much more of a joke.

Rent/house payment, gas, car insurance, food....all of it is much higher in Ca.
NO way could I afford to retire there when I quit working.

Whats the point of this thread? To trash the ACA?

That "if you like your health insurance, you can keep it"
I am in no way saying they are right, but in my opinion, to continue to demonize peoples honest criticism is at our I own perill. To ignore President Obamas own words is even dumber.

I took PBO at this word. I feel lied to and would have appreciated more transparency.

Nonetheless, I am still a strong supporter of both our President and REAL health CARE reform.

Obviously, there are other "points."

Middle class here and also encountering increase in health insurance costs on the exchange. PLUS just lost my job.

This is an important story to get, FWIW.

who don't understand that you can't compare apples and oranges. Bare bones or catastrophic policies have always been cheap compared to full coverage.

One of my relatives turned down a job at a small company because of their health coverage. They'd told him it was a great plan. It turns out that their great plan only covered 50% of doctors visits and 50% of hospital costs, with an annual maximum of $100K.

this administration craned out a whole bunch of stories, the intent of which was to get the public to believe that the costs in the exchange were going to be lower the pre-ACA costs. If one took the time to read those stories very carefully, as I did, one would see that every one of them had one or both of these deceptions intended to obscure the reality:

a) Quoted exchange prices AFTER the subsidy, and didn't mention that a substantial number of people would lose their prior insurance, yet not qualify for subsidies; and

b) Talked about cost being "lower than projected" without bothering to mention that the original projections were that the costs would go up. In effect, they were saying the prices are going up, but maybe not as much as was noted on pages 1479 - 1523 of the ACA bill.

So you are, in effect, saying a person is ignorant if they believe what the President and his administration was trying to get us to believe.

I for one am in favor of many aspects of ACA and it still remains to shake out.

But crappy lack of transparency in the advance work. I'd like to know what Obama knew and yes, when he knew it. Was he lied to, as well? I can't believe he would be dishonest with us, perhaps I missed something (along with many others) and this is not helpful in pushing forward Dem policies and leaders in the immediate future.

Back when the bill was running through Congress, I can understand how he could believe "You can keep your policy" and "you can keep your doctor". I don't think he was lying about that. I think everybody just assumed that the insurers would keep the private policies in place, mostly unchanged except for the :"minor" upgrades to meet the new ACA requirements. It seems that,. in fact, most insurers have decided NOT to upgrade current policies and instead are forcing customers into new policies that are more expensive and may not have a generous provider network.

So I understand how they didn't foresee this 3 years ago. But there is no excuse for the misleading information coming out recently.

Is Obama lying now? Well, he surely should know the truth. So either he is getting terrible advice or else he's intentionally lying.

It would be so much better to get in front of all these issues because, on balance, this is real progress. If he would just admit some of these things, I think those most impacted would be more likely to accept the impact as a sacrifice for the greater good.

He keeps saying that he is willing to sit down with Republicans to talk about changes to fix some of the problems. That ain't gonna happen. Maybe the administration should acknowledge some of the problems and propose improvements that would fix the problems. While the Republicans will not go along, that would clearly put the onus on the Republicans.

You should be advising him. My feelings exactly. Treat us like intelligent adults.

Thank you!

I don't like it, but I would accept that if the President or Secretary would simply acknowledge that people like me are getting hit pretty hard, that they understand the issues, that they will work on real solutions for 2015 and beyond, and that they appreciate our patience while the program rolls out important benefits to people who have much greater needs than I do.

I'd be perfectly OK with that.

What I am NOT OK with is these schmucks being in denial mode all the time.

Having an individual insurance plan was just a rip off prior to the ACA. They could have easily been rescinded for any number of reasons as soon as you got sick or suffered a serious injury, so you were essentially giving money away to an insurer for at best a false sense of security. These people make enough money to afford real insurance. I have no pity for them that the snake oil they were buying is now illegal.

We don't have exact data yet, but we do know some things:

a) Most of the early stories pushed out by the White House (and that IS propaganda) talked ONLY about the net cost after government subsidies.

b) If a person has never had insurance before, it is most likely they are in an income territory that will qualify for enough of a subsidy to make the policy truly affordable.

c) If a person has purchased their own insurance, in many markets (especially rural ones), the non-subsidized prices are MUCH higher -- 100% higher or more. And many of these people don't qualify for subsidies.

Another poster asked (basically), shouldn't this go down over time. Yes, it stands to reason that if the program rolls out successfully and essentially frees providers from the indigent care problem, then they should lower their prices to stop shoving those costs onto the rest of us. And eventually this should result in lower rates. But how long will this cycle take? 3 years? 5 Years? When was the last time any provider voluntarily lowered their prices?

The point is, this is not propaganda. It is a real problem, and something that needs to be improved. We wouldn't have any of these problems if there were simply a public option allowed in the exchanges. But Obama decided we couldn't have that discussion, so here we are.

It matches up with the employer provided policy that I had a few years ago. The doctor accepted my insurance card as payment for physicals, blood work, and bp meds. It will cover a colonoscopy when I get around to it.

Why do you say that my $169/ month is snake oil? I have no idea what my policy will cost with the ACA but if it doubles should I feel good about it? Will I get more for my money?

That is my big complaint. When I bought my policy online I used a website similar to Orbitz or Kayak but for health insurance. I was able to shop around which I cannot do with the ACA. Why cant I just get a quote? What is the big secret? I am guessing the secret is that I am about to get screwed big time!

For the reasons I stated. Did you actually read the body of my comment? I'm tired of making the same point over and over and having none of the anti-ACA posters address it. Did your former insurer have a rescission department? If so you were giving them money up front for coverage that they never intended to provide, and hence being ripped off. I'm sorry for your loss, but if it makes you feel better you can send me the money you want to throw away. I'll happily give you false reassurances that you'll be taken care of in the event of an accident or serious illness, just like your old insurer.

By the way, you can certainly shop around for the ACA. That's what the exchanges are all about. There are multiple plans available in all states for several levels of coverage. As to what the big secret is, well I'm pretty sure one of us has a big secret, but I'll let the mods make that call at the appropriate time.

Having an individual policy really does suck because you are at the mercy of the insurance company. When you start costing them too much money they will jack up your rates or drop you. There are plenty of horror stories out there and they should be better publicized. I guess I have been lucky so far. I probably have paid them $2000 per year for a couple of hundred dollars benefit. They like me now but I know that can change very quickly.

So with the ACA, they can't drop you if you start racking up the bills but can they raise your rates ? I still don't understand how some people pay 2 or 3x what other people pay. And I don't think that your rates should ever change. I would like to see some real numbers reported and the reasons why some people's rates are higher than others.

No big secrets... am definitely not a Republican if that is what you are guessing. Just a frustrated peon disgusted by politics

as part of paying it this way rather than the higher prices from the providers themselves, to make up for when they don't get paid in the ER when the uninsured go there when their condition can no longer be ignored?

up rates double digits since 9-11. quit yer bitchin

Maybe U.M.C.

To survive in luxury if they live in NYC, Washington DC area, Chicago, or anywhere in California.

Eighty K will let you live very comfortably in rural areas, and in places like the Southeastern States, but in many places, groceries, car payments, rent and insurance plus utilities will take about 99% of that money away.

Don't forget, if a family lives in an area where housing prices are expensive, they cannot at all manage to afford a house. (Unless they inherit the money for the down payment.) So each year, they lose their mortgage deduction, and are paying the taxes on the income that they use to rent.

his son to live comfortably in Los Angeles. Sorry but I am guessing this want has budgeting issues and a need to live in a super trendy zip code.

EDIT: OK, in SFO it's mid-60s. Still, well below $80K.

Most of California is not the Baeria or LA, and most people in the rest of the state could indeed live very comfortably on 80K.

SFO is the top and it's at like $66K or so.

you can't if you want to keep up with those making hundrends of thousands and millionaires and spend on things like private schools for kids every year. buy other expensive designer shit and whatever to try to keep up and show off to people.

but otherwise one could live very well in LA . and many people do. and most can get by with much less.

But a family? They'd be on a tight budget in LA.

On what do you base this claim?

to private school at 20k each year, own a luxury car for each person, go on expensive vacations regularly, spending on other shit nobody needs.

but most people could live very comfortably on 80k . send kids to public school. they can even afford regular vacations.

Oh please! Before I became disabled my whole family of 3 people lived on $50,000 per year with health insurance and with three insured cars (FSM forgive me) in Boston, Mass. Sticker shock my ass.

No doubt some people will really be burdened but someone making 80,000 a year shouldn't be complaining.

Fifty thousand a year.

Only way it can be done is if you own your home and have the mortgage deduction. And don't have to drive to work (gasoline is always a good 25 cents more a gal than other places in the USA, despite Calif having refineries, etc.)

In California, this is what housing prices in terms of rentals are:

Two bedroom, Novato, 1150 a month. This is a standard apartment: no hot tubs, or jacuzzis, if you' re lucky there is a small pool to share with two dozen other apts. No screens on the windows, buy them yourself, if you want them. Beaten up carpeting. Little storage space - a family might have to end up with a storage space at a cost of another $ 100 a month.

Also, and very importantly: In places where housing prices are sky high, a family cannot utilize the mortgage deduction, and so they are paying taxes on the income that allows them their housing monies. So that $ 1,150 a month two bedr apt actually can cost them at least $ 300 a month more.

No fancy stuff. Housing prices in the Boston area have been sky high for over a decade. Now many of that size are about $1,700.00 per month.

Yes, I paid less in gas but my property taxes went sky high with the housing build up. $150,000.00, 125 year old house assessed for $385,000.00. Yes, I had a more normal, older, fixed rate mortgage. That helped but I can guarantee you I have never lived anywhere in Boston that had either a hot tub or a jacuzzi. Those are considered luxury items.

Health insurance is not a luxury. Give up the freaking hot tubs and jacuzzis and maybe a Californian making $80,000 per year could afford their health insurance. BTW, I'm an accountant so maybe I have better budgeting skills than the average bear.

Cheapest thing I could find outside of some Lower Allston hellhole.

When I read the article in OP, my jaw dropped. All I could see was $238.00 per month for health insurance. She can get health insurance that cheap?! No... where's the catch? What are the deductibles? (I've never even heard of a $98.00 per month health insurance plan, let alone seen one.)

A decade ago I was out of work for a couple of months and my health insurance COBRA payments were $438.00 per month... for a single person. Blue Cross Blue Shield, not cheap insurance but certainly not Cadillac insurance either.

Edited to add: I forgot to say that $438.00 COBRA payment included my dental insurance as well.

cousins there.

There's nice houses too, but not that would rent to grad students.

Her old policy couldn't have covered maternity costs. (Only a few top end policies did.) Just her regular doctor visits alone (now covered) would have cost her what she'll be paying for in increased premiums -- and that doesn't count hospital costs at the end.

And under her old policy, if she'd had to spend weeks in the hospital or had given birth to a premature baby, she'd have been screwed.

you may be thinking of those who feel they need to send kids to private school, each person in the family gets a luxury car, people want to keep up with other wealthy families by buying the latest crap etc.

Ive raised 3 children in the suburbs of Boston on between 20 and 30k a year.

that didn't cover anything and left them on the hook for up to 80% opf their medical bills..
Health Net is the best at offering a plan for real money and no coverage.
Now the people are getting real coverage at a great cost and complaining about it.

Sid

There's no way her cheap old plan covered them, so she's a lot better off -- for $138 more a month she's getting full maternity coverage, in addition to all the other benefits. Plus there will be no annual or lifetime maximum.

What if she needs to spend a month or two in the hospital? What if her baby was born prematurely? Under the old law, that baby would have had a preexisting condition and would have been ineligible for insurance.

I helped a young woman get insurance with maternity benefits last year (because I don't think any fertile woman should have a policy without them) and the few available plans all cost almost $300 a month.

She should be glad that now all the plans have to cover maternity costs in the same way they do other health care expenses.

us preexisters were forced to use.

and never be eligible after that.

What a nightmare that would be for a parent.

I hate to jump in and criticize people I don't know, but I make $30k for a family of four, and I had things planned out so I would be able to afford about that amount. Somehow, I think they will be ok, and perhaps will benefit overall from the better coverage.

$80k a year and can't afford a $238 payment = MISMANAGEMENT of money.

We, or you, can ignore it. You can slice and dice anyway you want. You can call me ignorant. You can say I'm a spoiled upper middle classer. Whatevs. Fact remains, and it better start getting replied to transparently (sorely missing before the fact) and / or Dems are going to pay at the polls in 2014.

Those people at the company my relative applied for were intelligent people with advanced degrees -- and yet they thought they had a great insurance policy, with 50% hospitalization.

And the lawyer in the OP, who is pregnant, had no idea how much better off she is with maternity coverage now.

It's scary how dumb smart people can be.

Firstly, $238 a month is not god-awful for a premium, especially when coverage is expanded. Secondly, why shouldn't we be happy insurance companies are being forced to comply with rules that provide better coverage? You'd think people would want better coverage - and if an insurance company isn't complying with the laws, and decide to drop certain plans, they're entirely doing it for the $$$ and nothing else. That's the real story here: insurance companies acting like assholes because they don't want to provide expanded coverage to their consumer.

Guess what? When there are more regulations, things generally cost more. It's not a bad thing, either - it's just fact. But the sticker shock is hardly a shock. $238 is probably less than their car payment and potentially their cable/internet bill. It's about priorities, I guess. Millions of people will shell out $$$ for a car payment that is much bigger than the $238 she's complaining about, and have no problem doing it. But insurance that is actually good insurance? They can't bear the thought. It's an odd disconnect. Especially for a couple who make $80,000 a year.

insurance think it's fine to spend $500 on a belt or a purse.

I wonder how much their car payment is?

Not a drop of fucking sympathy for bullshit complaints like that.

who will now get all her well baby visits for free. And hospitalization at the end won't be excluded from her benefits. She is SO much better off.

I hope she gives better advice to her clients than she's giving to herself.

Clearly, here at least, it is blaspheme to question anything about the ACA. But in the real world the ACA is not all things good to all people.

Like any law, some people benefit and some do not. No matter how much one might wish to pretend otherwise, the ACA is no different. And with the ACA, the people who get hammered the hardest are those barely scraping by today. Subsidies are spiffy, but if you cannot afford the premium they do nothing -- and if the deductible is so high that the plan is worthless it's a double-blow. That's why there's a MANDATE, we have to force them or they wouldn't do it. No one is going to knowingly fuck themselves, so we have to do it to them. So condemn the LA Times if you like, but get used to hearing stories like this.

So yes, it's great that the affluent with pre-existing conditions can now afford insurance. That's a fantastic thing -- as is expanded medicaid. But for the family of three, working at Walmart (America's largest employer), having to abandon saving for their child's college (as if they could), being forced to blow off Christmas (as if they weren't already), or choosing which bill they aren't going to pay this month -- and all for a plan that does absolutely nothing because they cannot afford the deductible -- this Heritage foundation plan isn't all that great. It was a crappy idea when Heritage thought it up, and it's a crappy idea now that our party has embraced it.

And my prediction is this: when the poor and near poor really understand what the ACA is, when they are suddenly stuck with another fucking bill they cannot afford, holy hell is this going to bite us in the ass as a party. We're LIBERALS, we're supposed to represent the little people who are barely getting by. We are not supposed to add to their burden.

Somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten that.