Cheers!

Insurers: "we will gouge and exploit you (at least) one more time"

from a already effed up system -

This is payback

Notice how this starts with "Some Americans" --hope I'm wrong .

As the article admits:

"While insurers forecast instant premiums hikes starting next January, the overhaul also is expected to tame health care costs for many.

Starting next year, the law will require insurers to cover everyone who applies. That means health care costs could fall dramatically for people who have been unable to find coverage due to a chronic condition like diabetes or high blood pressure.

There also will be tax credits, or subsidies, given to people with incomes that fall within 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For 2013, 400 percent of the poverty level for all states except Alaska and Hawaii would be $94,200. These credits won’t lower premiums, but they can ease the insurance bill depending on a person’s income."

the $94,200 is for a 'family' of 4. The word 'family' currently applies only to married couples, that is straights only. A family of two gets subsidy with income up to 60,500. But the government does not count same sex couples as couples. Just those approved by Rick Warren and the Pope.
So claiming that 94K figure is a tad freewheeling without noting that is for a family of 4 which includes one married straight couple only. 44K and 94K are rather distant figures....
To say 'a person's income' when you are really speaking of household income for 2 adults is again, a bit on the fuzzy side.

I notice you did not respond to any of the details I posted. 'A person' does not get 94K as an income limit for subsidies, a family of 4 does. Only straight married couple type families count. Others will be counted as single people, not even as a couple or a household of two.
So. I am 'a person' and I do not get to earn 94K and get a subsidy. That's a fact. I get 44,608 as my cap after which no subsidies. Same for any and all single people. Not 94K, 44K.

Looks like you are trying to create a controversy where there is none. Of course an article is not going to offer all the details. And certainly this little scare piece did not. That is why I pointed people to healthcare.gov. And yes, the 94 K was for a family, of course. I don't think anyone believes a single person making 94K a year or more should be subsidized.

If you think treating others unfairly is not worth discussing, we are not on the same page at all.

I am only 'single' under the bigoted definition of 'family' used by the IRS and ACA. That's the point. The law you praise discriminates against good people.
Perhaps you should stop repeating the BS from an article you call a 'scare piece' as if it was worth repeating.
This law is discriminatory toward non traditional families. It will treat your household differently than mine, yours will be treated better which is why you see no controversy and I do. Denial of the facts does not change the facts.
I'm glad it is helpful to you and yours. I just wish our deal was equal to yours and it is not. Sorry if that bothers you so deeply, that I'd seek equal treatment.

Nothing I said was bs. I was just quoting the article, which offers an alarming headline that is not matched by the facts it actually reports. I just repeated what the body of the article correctly pointed out about the eligibility requirements, although it does it in a shorthand way, hence my reference to the website which provides all the details. Now, for the first time, you say the ACA "discriminates" against "non traditional families." I am not sure I know what you mean by that or what you mean by "treating others unfairly" since you do not state how a family should be defined. You offer no links, just apparent sarcasm: it sure as hell does not sound like you're "glad it is helpful to (my family)."

You know nothing about me or my family. You are obviously looking for a fight and I am not sure what it is you are itching to fight about. Sounds like your issue is with the IRS' definition of "family." If you want to start an OP about that, go ahead. Either way, I am done with this thread and your insults. Welcome to my ignore list. Buh bye.

80/20 rule? 80% of premium cost has to go to medical costs...how does taxes work into that?

that inclusion would have solved all this trouble. Public providers could set lower prices and private insurors would be forced to compete. The current system is basically an honor system imposed on people with no honor.

for a dollar.

costs much more than most private insurance per person -- now I'm not sure how you differentiate it for age, but the total cost of Medicare runs about $1400 / month.

and no, Medicare doesn't cost more than private insurance.

Others actually pay for it through taxes, and a lot of it is paid for by the general fund (borrowing or taxes).

That $100 premium is for part B. About three-quarters of that premum are subsidized by the government. So call that $420 (highest premium is 80% of cost, and it is $335.70). Then Part D varies, but it generally costs at least $60 if you want anything decent. We're up to $480. The part you don't see at all is Part A - the hospital insurance. That is partly paid for by the Medicare tax portion in FICA, and the balance is currently picked up by the general fund. That's $441 a month. There is some cost-sharing and certain things aren't covered. If you want Medigap to cover the cost sharing, it will generally cost you another $100-150 a month.

People only think Medicare is cheap because they don't understand how it is paid for.

For older folks, there is no private insurance that covers the same benefits as Medicare, so there is nothing to compare it with.

But if we all had to pay the cost of the services, it would be about $480 + $440 or $920. No dental, etc. However that cost also includes controlled costs - hospitals and doctors are limited what they can charge Medicare patients. Also I think there is a another subsidy in Part A that I'm forgetting, but hey. There is some subsidy for Part D for most people.

(instead of single payer for all) would greatly decrease the cost of health care (insurance) because of all the people added to the "pool."
America must have tax payed health coverage for all, just like all developed nations do. Get rid of the health insurance industry. it is only meant to make people suffer and die while they get wealthier. Health care is a Right (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) not a commodity.
Progressively tax wealth like we have always done after FDR not like we have done since reagan...
trickle down...

This is one simple fact that anybody who's ever gone after insurance knows.

Covering more people increases costs. If they don't pay their own way, the costs have to go up for everybody else.

It was assumed that everybody would buy into it. Experience shows this doesn't happen. You pay the penalty tax until you have a serious problem, then get insurance. Win-win for you. Tragedy for the commons.

It was assumed that companies offering health insurance would continue to offer it, even if they could save money by ditching it and the employees wouldn't be worse off. This also seem unlikely, except where employees would be worse off. For example, if company insurance is a lot better than the generic public offerings. However, many of those kinds of plans are hit by an additional tax to ensure that the employees aren't that much better off.

It was assumed that companies when required would gladly offer in-house insurance. Lots of large companies have a lot of waivers. Granted, they're due to expire at the end of 2013, and many find this a really convincing argument. If they're due to expire, come 2014 they're certainly history! Done deal! Uh ... Remember how all the * tax cuts were due to expire at the end of 2012 and their recission formed part of the basis of the Obama 2013 budget?

It's still assumed that costs will decrease as all the people that have poor health get better; as all those going to emergency rooms for routine problems go to doctor's offices. Experience shows that poor health is a function of education as much as of medical coverage availability; that those with poor health are more likely to be in poverty and in impoverished areas, and there's a shortage of doctors in those areas already; that those who are poor, given nearly universal coverage, continue to go to emergency rooms for routine problems. MA managed part of its doctor shortfall by encouraging doctors to move from elsewhere. Where's elsewhere going to tap a new source of MDs when residency programs are already under fire?

The amount of confirmation bias exhibited is truly awesome.

Duh.

The article did have one paragraph of balance and it stated “It’s misleading to look at one provision of the law alone. Taken together, the law will reduce costs.”

That hardly supports what the headline concludes. Of course the law will reduce costs because 30 million more people will have insurance and that alone will drive down costs. An example of how much can be found in the estimated $716 billion (over 10 years) savings in Medicare. Plus, insurance companies are already having to give rebates because they are not paying out the full 85% of premiums for actual care as required by this law.

my company have just announced they "renegotiated" rates and those rates have gone up 18%, but with less choices and coverages - and there has never been a year when it has not gone up. I can't afford the insurance and there are many like me. And then boss shakes his head and says "oh what will it be like under Obamacare" - oh how I would love to tell him.

The insurance companies have no need to raise their premiums and neither do the providers. This is all a "let's bamboozle everyone and get them to pay more" excuse. The insurance companies are in this game for sheer profit - if it wasn't there they would find new ways to bilk people.

It is time for single-payer, medicare for all, it is time for these crooked, greedy, insurance companies to go the way of the dinosaurs. The current system is corrupt and dishonest.

come out of the profit, just eat the cost of "changes that will occur when key provisions of the Affordable Care Act roll out in January 2014. "
that way no one will be affected

...and then jack up the price?

Quelle surprise!

PB

in other words they blocked every avenue for us to get health care without being gouged. No surprise here.

Information from http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

The additional medicare tax kicked in this year at .9%
Medical device excise tax 2.3%
Tax in indoor tanning services 10% (who would have guessed that one?)
Transitional reinsurance fee. Estimated at $62 per covered person and scheduled to end in 2017
Annual Fee on Health Insurance Providers. A fee that is very complicated to calculate but is scheduled to collect $8 billion in 2014 going up to $14.3 billion in 2018.
Annual Fee on Branded Prescription Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Importers. Again complicated.

And of course, ever one is required to purchase health care in 2014 if not provided to you otherwise.

No more for-profit companies, sucking the blood from Americans.

barely use it? I for one have given them thousands, but they have given me close to nothing back. Wake up, people. Shop for insurance like you would anything else. Do your homework. The insurance companies look for any excuse they can possibly find to increase your rates.

good care for the price for diabetes..

Choosing your insurance is like flipping a damn coin.

The fox guarding the hen house.

because, #1. The pool will be larger to include not only those with health problems, but also those who are problem free. #2. The MLR is in place, so if these insurers' premiums do go up substantially, they'd better make sure the money is going towards medical care, and not administrative fees. #3. The exchanges will keep the costs lower because of competition.

price it takes to make them, then I will belive whatever the health insurance and big pharma industry tells me. Fot now, its all utter bs designed to charge us more. I am stuck, I have to go to the doctor lots of times a year, I have to buy tons of prescriptions to live (insulin and test strips aren't cheap but it keeps me alive), I have to get those blood tests done every few months and my husband can't even think about changing jobs since I am under his insurance. Most of all, my husband and I have to pay whatever these idiots and vultures offer through his employer as I work part time. I have to do it to live.

Medicare for all !