Health Care changes

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 321 - 340 of total 1151 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:38am PT
My cancelled insurance was not JUNK at all. It was a better policy than I will have in January.
Basically, it is the same policy with a much greater monthly premium, maternity coverage and deductibles that are 2-3X greater than my old policy. My old policy did not have MATERNITY coverage. I am not having any more children yet I get to pay for maternity....sweet.


My policy cost went up big time with now huge deductibles. I will now pay a fortune for catastrophic accident coverage.

My new policy is unaffordable. i make just enough to not qualify for subsidies so it appears the lower middle class gets to subsidize the poor. I will now pay more per month for insurance than I do for my home mortgage.

If times get tough, insurance will be the first expense to get dropped. Obamacare will fail because it is unaffordable for the working class.


Trust me, I am not alone in the predicament.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:47am PT
jghedge wrote
Then why'd McCauliffe, a staunch ACA supporter, just win the governorship of a southern conservative state, defeating a wingnut who swore to oppose it?

Are you trying to convince those of us on the fence? You'll have to look past party talking points to find the whole truth.
Here is a link with another perspective. Myself? I don't know anything about Virginia except that they call small hills mountains.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/11/07/in-wake-of-narrow-cuccinelli-loss-democrats-panic/

apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:08pm PT
"In the past 6 years my share of my premiums has more than tripled. (My employers share is capped at $7000)"

Imagine if health insurance wasn't coupled to employment, and people had to foot the entire cost?

The retarded coupling of health insurance & employment, and the ridiculous increases in healthcare costs would have been addressed years ago, and we'd be in the logical place we should be: a single payer system.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
jghedge wrote
How desperate and stupid you'd have to be to believe that, I can't imagine. The reality is the exact opposite - as it always is in Wingnut Fantasy World.

Mr Hedge,
You should Google who Walter Russell Mead is, before you begin your inevitable and persistent ad hominems. I assure you, he is far more respected in issues of social policy than you or I. He also voted for Obama.

This may explain much of your lack of civility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

PS: Try decaf.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:53pm PT
My cancelled insurance was not JUNK at all. It was a better policy than I will have in January.
Basically, it is the same policy with a much greater monthly premium, maternity coverage and deductibles that are 2-3X greater than my old policy. My old policy did not have MATERNITY coverage. I am not having any more children yet I get to pay for maternity....sweet.

My policy cost went up big time with now huge deductibles. I will now pay a fortune for catastrophic accident coverage.

My new policy is unaffordable. i make just enough to not qualify for subsidies so it appears the lower middle class gets to subsidize the poor. I will now pay more per month for insurance than I do for my home mortgage.

If times get tough, insurance will be the first expense to get dropped. Obamacare will fail because it is unaffordable for the working class.

Trust me, I am not alone in the predicament.

Perhaps your "predicament" is similar to Deborah Cavallaro's?


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-debunked-20131030,0,6010994.story#axzz2k4rwHAqa

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:01pm PT


Perhaps your "predicament" is similar to Deborah Cavallaro's?
Nope, not even close. Haning started my own business a few years ago, I have become very familiar with the REALITY of insurance today. It was not great before Obamacare but is much worse today. Worse meaning....unaffordable for someone like me that has a family of 4 and is in good health.



Unfortunately, the REALITY that Obamacare is going to prove to be unaffordable to the folks that are expected to fund it.

Those that are self employed or employed by a small business are going to be impacted immediately.

Employers will shift more if not all the financial burden to its employees in the next couple years. Young folks will decide to remain uninsured instead of paying the huge premiums.

Middle class( and below) folks will not pay for insurance when faced with the dilemma of paying for rent or insurance. Obamacare is going to be dramatically underfunded.

The idea that health care is an intrinsic right is a good one but I just do not see this working out and time soon.

Some say .....Single payer. Great, then make it happen.

I don't see it happening in my life time but maybe? I see two classes of health care. One class for the rich who can basically pay cash for the services of the best and brightest doctors and a second system for the masses. Get in line, take a number and hopefully the 3rd tier med school grad can treat you in time before you die from your illness.


Hope I am wrong but the above senario is probable.

Hoser

climber
vancouver
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:03pm PT
Obama didn't say one damn thing about "junk insurance", but did say some variation of "if you like it, you can keep it" dozens of times.

Thats because he was talking to adults with a brain, who needs to say if you were getting f*#ked I will allow you to keep getting f*#ked

what the hell is a matter with you? You want an option to remain f*#ked?

I will now pay more per month for insurance than I do for my home mortgage.

Your house probably costs less than a catastrophic health issue, why dont you vote in a government that will bring in a single payer system instead of trying to go backwards.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
Your house probably costs less than a catastrophic health issue, why dont you vote in a government that will bring in a single payer system instead of trying to go backwards

Maybe, depends how fast you die.

My reality is my house will be paid off in a few years. Maybe then I can afford insurance.
As I will be older, I will likely need more medical care and can buy insurance then and pass the buck to the younger generation that can subsidize me.

Oh wait, they wont be buying the unaffordable insurance so who is going to subsidize my old sick ass lol



Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
If you're too stupid to shop around for better, cheaper coverage, that's your problem, not the governments.

I have/had GOOD insurance.

We are keeping the insurance because Obamacare excludes the hospital that is the nearest to our home.

I get to keep the same insurance but with dramatically increased deductibles and a significant increase in monthly payments.

I shopped around, cant find anything better unless we want a MASSIVE deductible ( $12k)


JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
Your house probably costs less than a catastrophic health issue, why dont you vote in a government that will bring in a single payer system instead of trying to go backwards.

Now there's a classic free lunch.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
OK. That does it! Every time I click on this thread, I get an ad for health insurance. This thread is obviously part of a vast conspiracy to rip us off one way or the other, so I'm done here.

John
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
I am curious why so many are annoyed that maternity is included in policies. I don't and won't ever need it either. But I will also never need prostate cancer care, or testicular cancer care, etc. Why no outrage about that?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
Short answer, crimpie, is that maternity generally depends on the actions of the insured and therefore is not a classic insurable risk. To my knowledge, no one voluntarily contracts ovarian or testicular cancer.

I realize this answer is politically incorrect, but it is economically and, heretofore legally, a distinction vital in insurance contracting.

John
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:45pm PT
So JE - does that mean we shouldn't cover climbing accidents too as they are based on the actor's actions?
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:46pm PT
Crimpie won't need Viagra, either, but you or I could get it through our insurance coverage even if we don't really need it.

Not sayin'....jess sayin'...
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:47pm PT

"We are keeping the insurance because Obamacare excludes the hospital that is the nearest to our home."


Why does the hospital have to be close to your home? Paying more justifies not having to drive further? And isn't that a choice you're making, not the gov't?


So when we need ER services, I( or my children) want to spend an extra hour in the car bleeding out or be directed to the hospital closest to my house that will probably just charge me huge $$$$ because I am out of network.


So Hedge, did you sign up for Obamacare or do you have other insurance. Just curious?




apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
Teenagers who eat too much ice cream exacerbate their acne...yet insurance will cover their medications.

Smokers who smoke too much will likely have a heart attack, and their insurance will cover them anyway.

These actions...and so many others, including pregnancy...require acts of the part of the individual.

Why wouldn't a socially-promoting & basic human right of pregnancy not be expected to be part of basic healthcare coverage?

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
Crimpie, it certainly means that we would not cover climbing, motorcycling, ultralight aircraft, etc., for the same rate we cover those who choose not to engage in those activities. In fact, most all life insurance policies require that you pay extra for a variety of choices, not only recreational, but, e.g., choosing to smoke. Europeans require that the rescued climber pay for the rescue, thus creating the market for rescue insurance.

In general, when we allow people to engage in costly activities and insure against the costs of those activities for free, we create what economists call a "moral hazard." This has nothing to do with morality in its conventional sense. Rather, it creates a subsidy for engaging in costly activity. It is similar to requiring all of us to subsidize flood insurance for those who choose to live in a flood plain.

As many have pointed out, what we call "health insurance" has an insurance component -- namely indemnity from unanticipated outcomes from which we are all at risk, regardless of our actions -- but it also includes what amounts to routine maintenance. Maternity involves a combination of both factors. In this day and age, most children represent a voluntary action by people who desire to have children. The "normal" cost of maternity is something everyone having children will pay. There's also, though,, the additional costs that result from complications. Those additional costs are a true insurable risk. The former are not.

Ironically, the opponents of the ACA often oppose legal abortion as well. If there were no legal abortion, unplanned pregnancy would then be a classic insurable risk, so maybe Dave Berry was right when he titled his book Children and Other Hazards of Sex.

Does that help?

John
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
and once again, Crimpie absolutely blasts it out of the park

I am curious why so many are annoyed that maternity is included in policies. I don't and won't ever need it either. But I will also never need prostate cancer care, or testicular cancer care, etc. Why no outrage about that?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
they're complaints about the extortionate cost of health care in this country,

When Medicare was enacted health care consumed 3% of the GNP; now it is 8% and rising rapidly.
Messages 321 - 340 of total 1151 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews