If you’re younger than 50 and entirely self insured you’re in for a nightmare..

[busterbrown]

when you hit your 60’s. Even if you’re healthy and have rarely used your insurance over
the years ( In my case 20 years ) by the time you hit 60 for a single guy your premium with
a moderate deductible will be around $800 per month.. Then the nightmare begins. Over the
next 5 years expect your premiums to increase every year at high of 30% and a low of 15%.
By the time you’re in your 64th year you’ll be guaranteed to be spending around $18,000
a year.........Again thats if your single and in great physical shape. Any problems will cost you
big time out of pocket.

And they want to add two more years of this Crap. Those two more years could cost you close
to $40,000. Fucking Insane!!!! So if you’re reading this and aren’t thinking 10 or 15 years ahead,
You better start gettin involved!

[Xipe Totec]

1. Here's a possible solution

buy whole life insurance, and have your carrier pay your health insurance to try and keep you alive those extra two years.

I don't know, maybe it would be worth it to them.

Always make it more profitable for them if your alive than dead, and watch them fall over themselves to keep you alive.

[Hoyt]

2. Assume you are speaking of health insurance. Fortunately, Obamacare has some provisions that

prevent that, even in its current form. Give a few years of tweaks, public option and maybe single payer and we'll avoid anything like that -- assuming we the people are willing to give up choice of any doctor, hospital, etc., we want to use; the latest and greatest meds even though cheap generics are just as good; every dang test that can be run even though they don't improve outcomes; and the like. Personally, I'm fine with all that. But I know lots of folks who think otherwise.

[WinstonSmith4740]

10. The way I understand it...

the public option/single payer would be modeled on Medicare. In fact, if the Dems had called it "Medicare for All" from the beginning, I seriously doubt they would have all the problems.

"...public option and maybe single payer and we'll avoid anything like that -- assuming we the people are willing to give up choice of any doctor, hospital, etc., we want to use;"

In my experience with my husband's illness, Medicare was a life-saver. It was his only insurance, but he was never turned down for the latest, cutting-edge treatment, never treated with less than complete professional courtesy, and never, ever denied choice of doctors, etc. His last oncologist told me that "Doctor's like Medicare. They approve everything. They may discount heavily, but they pay. On time. I don't need a staff arguing with insurance companies for payment."

Medicare is a fabulous program, and deservedly popular, even for a "big government program." If they can tweak the ACA correctly, it should be the best thing in a lo-o-ong time.

[karynnj]

24. It still would not have passed

Remember that Lieberman was even against allowing people aged 55 to 65 to buy into Medicare. We needed every Democratic vote.

[LAGC]

41. Lieberman is a snake. (n/t)

[bvar22]

80. Lieberman SHOULD have been given an offer he couldn't refuse.

Thousands of Working Class Americans lives were and are On-the-Line.
This was/is NOT a time to play nice.

There were ways to convince Lieberman to see things differently,
unless he was just playing Judas Goat in the Kabuki Theater.
He didn't have anything to lose.
Why not just Take One for Team DLC?

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

[subterranean]

11. Why would we have to give up choice of doctors, etc.?

Single payer would give us more freedom of choice than we have now. There would be no "in-network" and "out-of-network." Almost all doctors and hospitals would be in network. That's how it is now in single-payer countries.

[Hoyt]

81. Except, you are free to go to any doctor, take almost any medicine available, etc.

Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

You do not have free choice in most countries. Drug formularies are tightly controlled, and cost is a big factor. If you need a specialist, you are assigned one, or have limited choice at best. Hospitals often specialize in certain diseases. You may love old Dr. Welby, but to keep the system costs down -- you don't get to choose very much.

Again, I'm fine with that.

I have Kaiser now and like it, it's about as cheap as you can get without really high deductibles, copays, etc.

But, when I started, I had to change a number of meds to less costly ones. I got to choose from 3 primary care physicians. If I need surgery, I'll go where assigned. And I LIKE IT, because it's a coordinated system, which free choice systems are not. You'll get better care in a coordinated system.

And I'll guarantee you that most of those that want single payer will yell like crazy when they start tightening the system. Again, I'm fine with that and believe that is the way it should be so that we can cover those currently uninsured. But those who value free choice, etc., are going to be disappointed.

[eridani]

19. Giving up choice of doctor and hospital? Utter horseshit

Insurance companies and employers are exactly the ones who eliminate that choice for us now. Under single payer you have the choice of ANY licensed practitioner--not that that is of much help to those living in medically underserved areas.

[southernyankeebelle]

3. If all else fails move to a country that has social medicine.

[davekriss]

53. I guess you haven't looked at their immigration laws

Most people will not be able to immigrate to any first world nation with universal health insurance (which is all of them sans us).

[southernyankeebelle]

72. Yes I understand and agree with you.. Just an option I hope my fellow americans don't have to take.

[msongs]

4. well at least the welfare parasite military will still be getting tons of $$ nt

[rainin]

5. Oh no

I have term life insurance. It expires when I am 65. If I want to keep it, I will be paying outrageous monthly payments for my life insurance and my health insurance. I better stay well or die before my 66th birthday.

[RKP5637]

6. We live in a F'en insane country. Yep, I know it's not the worse, but the US is a

F'en insane pace. Any not seeing that have got their head in the sand, up their butt or are on the take.

[Curmudgeoness]

29. "Not the worse" isn't really good enough, is it? nt

[RKP5637]

32. No, it really isn't, it's always used too much, I think, to gage our ineptness as acceptable. n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

35. Sadly, too many people still think we are number one.

And as long as people believe that, they are not motivated to make changes. This is not the country it was 50+ years ago.

[RKP5637]

38. No, it certainly is not, not at all. I had a republican tell me the other day, well, you

can leave the country if you want, but you'll always come back, because this is the best place in the world.

Sometimes it's not even worth responding to them. So many wander in ruts feeling good that they live in the best place in the world, and there's no need for change or progress, 'cause we're #1. That might be a good epitaph for the US. "We're #1."

When I was young all I saw, for the most part, was hope and a bright future. Now, I look at the wealth gap in the US, the cost of getting an education, and all of the political shenanigans and I don't see a very bright future for many of the youth of today. And that, is very sad. And frankly, I don't see much of a future for people as they age. Having been born around FDR time, I feel I was lucky to have been part of that period of prosperity for the masses, but today, that seems a dream from long ago.

[Curmudgeoness]

45. Whenever someone pulls the "love it or leave it" bullshit on me

all I want is for them to leave....go somewhere like Haiti, where there is not government to speak of, or Afghanistan, where religion rules. The point is that THEY are the ones who do not love this country. They are the ones making all the changes for the worse in this country----trying to "fix it" from those times that both of us remember from our youth.

[RKP5637]

46. Yep, same here! n/t

[PopeOxycontinI]

7. My God...

who the hell is going to actually pay that? There are no good jobs.
Who the fuck are these people?

[busterbrown]

8. if you have a middle class home and salary,You’ll have to protect your home and assets

so you’ll have to pay for it. No fucking choice! And it absolutely sucks!

[leftyladyfrommo]

9. I'm 64 and I ran into that

until I found health insurnce thru Blu Cross - $228 a month with 5,000 deductible.

Not the best insurance but it's there if something really bad should happen. I was paying $600 something before that. It was awful.

I don't have any health problems at all except for high blood pressure.

Scary.

[pnwmom]

16. Less scary than before. Starting next year, they won't be able to charge more

for people with health conditions. Or more for women than men.

Age will be the only factor, along with the particular health plan a person chooses.

[eridani]

20. Yup, age is such a trivial factor.

Paying three times as much for crappy insurance--such a deal!

[pnwmom]

23. For a 60 year old to pay 3 times as much as a 20 year old sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

For the 60 year old, anyway.

[eridani]

39. Your problem is that you have gotten too used to living in a barbaric society

In no other developed country is age rating allowed. Everyone is in the same risk pool, period, and average per capita health care costs in civilized countries is half of what we pay.

[pnwmom]

42. You'd rather starve than have half a loaf. I wouldn't.

I would prefer Medicare for all, but that wasn't one of the options. Obamacare will be significantly better than the status quo, and we can still work for single payer.

[eridani]

44. Not for those age 55-64

If you aren't covered by an employer and can't afford insurance now, having to buy insurance will actively prevent you from getting health care. The deductibles on the cheaper plans are so high that you have to pay for doctor visits--except that you have already given the money to insurance companies.

[pnwmom]

48. Even people in that age group will be better off.

Many of those who can't afford insurance now will be given subsidies so they can. Others will be able to enter an expanded Medicaid program.

No one will be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions, and no one will be dropped from a plan because they develop a serious medical issue.

[eridani]

56. The subsidies won't be enough, and they are in the form of tax credits

You still have to come up with the actual money on a monthly basis. You can and will be dropped from a plan if you miss the payments.

[pnwmom]

62. That's what you say. I don't think we'll know if the subsidies will be enough

until we see how many people actually enroll next year.

[eridani]

65. What we know about MA is--

--that5 years after reform, Medical bankruptcies are still 50% of all bankruptcies
--most of the people with hardship exemptions from buying insurance are precisely those with the greatest needs--people not poor enough for Medicaid and not well off enough to buy overpriced age-rated insurance, mainly those between 55 and 64 years of age.

[pnwmom]

66. Why do you think young people, who are in general healthier and make less money,

should have to pay the same amount in premiums as older people?

[eridani]

67. Because actuarial risk adjustment is both viciously amoral and twice as expensive to boot

Fucking around with risk pools and having healthier people game the system essentially executes 100,000 per year in the US, and leads to costs that are twice what other developed countries pay for this shitty result. And that's not even counting millions of medical bankruptcies, which in MA after implementing a plan similar to ACA dropped from 59% of all bankruptcies to 50% of all bankruptcies (and that mainly because the depression added lots of other reasons to go bankrupt).

Putting everyone in the same risk pool eliminates this idiotic administrative expense, so that young people in these countries actually pay less than young people here. Those systems are a statement to the young that their parents hope and expect that their kids will live long enough to possibly require more expensive care, which they will not have to pay extra to get.

[pnwmom]

70. That's not why the costs are lower there. It's because hospital and doctor charges are regulated

and held down.

If we put everyone in the same risk pool, our costs would still be too high. They wouldn't magically go down for everyone just because we charged everyone the same. Putting people in 3 risk pools based on age is a tiny administrative expense.

[eridani]

71. It is certainly one of the reasons

All those systems are either single payer or single buyer, which is an absolute precondition for that kind of cost control. And much lower administrative costs certainly help as well.

Advocating for actuarial risk adjustment is essentially advocating mass murder.

[Selatius]

61. There will be a donut hole where people make too much for aid but too little for good insurance.

Nobody can be denied coverage based upon pre-existing conditions; and nobody who seriously watched the ACA passing the Senate would deny that, but the huge compromise is that there will be people carrying around insurance policies they cannot afford to even use without breaking the bank. This isn't an argument for repeal of the ACA but one to cite that the ACA has major fundamental problems that need another major round of reform.

[pnwmom]

63. I agree. The ACA is basically a floor -- and now we need to build on that floor. nt

[busterbrown]

27. Pray tell... How old are you. I had blue cross in Cali. and paid 350 with a huge deductible.

Had a out patient knee operation and paid a 7800 deductable.
I was 62.

[subterranean]

12. Obamacare will limit such increases.

I believe insurance will not be allowed to charge older people more than 3 times what they charge younger people for the same policy. That's still too much if you ask me, but it's something.

[Curmudgeoness]

33. Isn't that wonderful! Young people pay $300 or more a month

and older people would not have to pay more that three times that amount. Yippee. It is NOT a good deal for the older people. Then you have to ask, what is considered "older people"? Who sets that age? I am pro-Medicare for all. That is the only possible solution to the prices of health insurance that few can possibly afford.

Think about it....the health insurance would be well beyond what my mortgage payment was. It is more than twice what any sane car payment is. And THOSE are supposed to be our "major purchases" in life.

[eridani]

68. They limit the increases without approval to 9.9% per year

Which by sheerest coincidence is the average premium increase for the last 2 years. Do the math. If you are 45 and paying $400/month now, in 10 years you will be paying $935/month. Then you will be 55 and you can start paying $2800/month, which will increase by 9.9% a year until you become Medicare eligible, supposing that you aren't bankrupt or dead by then. Then add the proposed raising of eligibility age to 67 and the voucherization scheme (which some overprivileged asshole pundits are using ACA to justify even now).

[MJJP21]

13. Are we forgetting?

Are we forgetting that starting this year I think 80% of premiums collected must go for health care coverage or be given back to the payers? Leaving health care providers a mere 20% to fund massive salaries and bonuses . There isn't enough left to amass large profits. The for profit medical industry should be going the way of the dinosaur in a few years.

[progressoid]

47. Which basically means "Affordable" haealth care

means that before any of my money can be used for to my health care, I have to give 20% to a middle man.

Yippee. Great system.

[JoeyT]

64. Well, 20%

assuming they can't find some loophole that allows them to skim more than that. I don't know if they'll get away with it, but I bet they're going to invent a whole bunch of new tricks to try.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Death Panels:

The Ins. Co.'s

[pnwmom]

15. Is this based on info you have about Obamacare or are you basing this on past history?

And do you understand that lower income people will be eligible for subsidies?

I would prefer Medicare to stay at age 65, but I'm wondering where you got your numbers.

[busterbrown]

25. I’m talking about my situation only. Middle class job with assets probably in the upper middle

which I have got to protect. I can’t apply for help from the Affordable Act. I am
single. I’m not desperate, however I’d not like to loose everything which I worked
so hard for.

[Skittles]

31. a lot of people do not get that part

being able to afford something but not wanting to waste a lot of money we worked very hard for on overpriced, crappy "insurance"

[WheelWalker]

17. Do you have some authority for these projections?

[busterbrown]

26. Just my own experience with Blue Cross. Just got Medicare!

[WheelWalker]

30. Malarkey. I'm in my 64th year. My BC-BS self-pay premium is $550. Deductible is $1,500 and,

I had a massive heart attack 10 years ago. Not saying your numbers are bunkum; but any general extension of your experience to everyone is.

[busterbrown]

60. What is your out of pocket expense if you have another hospital stay..

What state are you in? I know people who might have better premiums than I, and I
know plenty that have worse! You sound as though you’re all right with this current system..

[Honeycombe8]

18. "Self-insured" means you pay for ALL your med expenses. You mean "individual insurance policy"

which is that you buy your own policy on the market.

[busterbrown]

22. Sorry.... Individual Insurance Policy is what I am referring to. Self insured, I thought I buy my ow

policies...

[Honeycombe8]

21. Don't forget that people lose their jobs late in life thru no fault of their own...

so even if they're not now buying their own insurance, they will be, if they lose their jobs.

I'm with you on this. NO RAISING THE MEDICARE AGE OF ELIGIBILITY!!!! That would hurt so many people, for no good reason. There are other ways to go to fix Medicare's problems. Throwing older people out on teh market to spend their life savings on insurance is NOT the way to go.

[crim son]

28. Or, you could live like I do,

uninsured because I can't afford even the most basic coverage. Either way you lose but as a person with rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, uncontrollable GERD as well as all those pesky female problems like ovarian cysts the size of walnuts - and living on just under $24K, making too much to qualify for public assistance - I am looking forward to whatever Obamacare can do to improve my situation and am counting on it being only the first step in the march toward a single-payer system.

[Curmudgeoness]

34. Watch out for that "uncontrollable GERD".

I have recently been diagnosed with Barrett's Esophagus because of years of GERD. Prilosec. And Vitamin D/Calcium with it.

[theinquisitivechad]

55. Don't forget the magnesium with that Vit D/Calcium

Those meds can cause magnesium deficiency plus you need the magnesium to make the calcium usable

[Curmudgeoness]

76. I thought that was what the Vit D was for.

I have not heard about magnesium deficiency. I was just told to take Calcium with Vit D. I don't suppose another freaking pill a day will matter. Ugh. I should have dealt with the acid indigestion years ago.

[patrice]

78. Daily salad helps me a lot. Mixed greens, not just iceberg lettuce. nt

[Thinkingabout]

36. In Canada a hospital has around three employees doing claims and similar size hospital

Has around 600 doing the same job. Just how much money is saved in Canada and applied to real health care. We are eating up health care cost in salaries and not giving the most bang for the buck.

[truebluegreen]

37. True.

We left the US a few years ago for just such reasons. No work (construction biz), self-employed, late 50s in age with already high premiums, and a system that left us one bad diagnosis away from bankruptcy. And a health scare that turned out to be a false alarm but was enough to wake us up.

If we come back, it'll take single payer.

[Bonobo]

49. Much the same here.

Self-employed, family of 5. I realized the cost of insurance was breaking us.

3 years ago, Massachusetts.

$900 per month for a $5,000 deductible with $25 copays, probably $1,100 for a $1,500 with $15 copays.

No dental insurance except available that isn't a ripoff fraud.

Got a hernia. Boom $5,000.
Injure a knee in karate. Choose not to get x-rays that would cost hundreds.
Dental cleanings for 3 kids. Cavities once in a while. Root canals or god forbid crowns become VERY expensive. Health costs exceeding mortgage costs regularly. Who could maintain such costs?

THAT is America.

Now in Japan, I pay perhaps $600 for the family and it covers almost everything. Doctors visits cost very little and all dental is a matter of a few dollars. Hell, I sliced my finger and got 5 stitches and wound up EARNING $65 dollars for suffering.

THAT is a country interested in maintaining a strong healthy population.

[truebluegreen]

57. Yes. It is clear to me that our own government doesn't consider us citizens

but instead commodities, for someone to make money off of.

I have no problem with paying taxes that make life better and easier for all of us. I have a real problem with funding a military/intelligence machine that doesn't serve me, or "freedom," but rather the international corporations that buy our politicians.

I do what I can, share information, make my arguments, donate to the best, vote from abroad, and even pay the taxes I must (though I get very little "stuff&quot .

I will not leave myself and my family at the mercy of monsters. Good luck to us all.

[Politicalboi]

40. Why are they able to discriminate against

Single people? I am a lesbian, and will ALWAYS have file taxes as single unless the feds do other. Why should being single be a wedge to squeeze more money out of us. And our SSI benefits go back to the government when we die. So being single should allow you to collect early because it will be lost when you die.

[drlindaphd]

43. Healthcare costs

My husband retired in 2001. He has been on Medicare through the PA State Employee's Retirement System. As his wife, who is not yet 65, I am also entitled to receive my medical insurance through this group. I pay over $1000 a month for my PPO. This is all before the Affordable Care Act.

I will turn 65 this March and be Medicare eligible. I just submitted my application on the first of December.

Complain all you want, it will not be any worse. I am a provider, a licensed psychologist. I have seen this from all sides. I have more than just my personal experience to go on. I have adjusted my fees down for people who cannot afford insurance. I see people pro bono. I am not in this profession to become wealthy. Fortunately, I can follow my ethics and beliefs and practice my way. I work to help people.

I am tired of people who do not see what a benefit the president's reforms are. They are far from perfect, but we have to get control of our healthcare out of the hands of the insurance and pharmacological industries. We are suffering so they can make money. That is why premiums are so high.

Stop blaming the president. He is powerful, but he is not all powerful.

[customerserviceguy]

50. If you're under fifty and self insured

You should be buying high deductable insurance, and stuffing as much as you possibly can into a Health Savings Account. I got into one a few years ago at age 54, and I don't regret it.

[Lex]

51. I'm 47 and in good health and switched over to a high deductible (5K) with an HSA

a few months ago and am going to try to put whatever I can into that HSA.

[customerserviceguy]

52. Good for you

I have about $9K in my account right now. My doctor and I discussed it, and I'm going off the high deductable this year to get a bunch of tests, but I plan on resuming it (and HSA contributions) in 2014.

[eridani]

69. Thanks for helping to bankrupt and kill the 15% sick minority by withdrawing money from the system

85% of the population accounts for 15% of total health care costs, and you are lucky to be in it. You and the rest of the 85% should be forced to pay for the care of sick people for the same reason that people whose property doesn't catch fire are forced to pay to maintain fire departments. Why? Because you never know whether or not you will be one of the unlucky ones in the future.

[Lex]

73. How is he withdrawing money from the system?

I have an HSA and still pay a hefty amount monthly for a policy for catastrophic coverage, as I assume he does as well.

[eridani]

74. Health savings accounts are useful only to those affluent enough to pay income tax

It is essentially a tax break for being affluent and healthy, allowing reimbursement for paying for aspirin and bandaids as well as doctor copays. Lower income people pay straight out for all of this. Actual lower income sick people could never afford to set aside tax-free thousands to meet ordinary health care expenses. These tax breaks deplete the budget every bit as much as the Bush tax cuts for the 1%

HSAs are part of a system that kills 100,000 a year and bankrupts millions--very few of which are those who can afford to take advantage of this tax break.

[Lex]

75. Wrong, HSA don't pay for aspirin and bandaids.

WTF are you talking about? My HSA will help for my fucking $5000 deductible for catastrophic care if need be.

I, like "lower income people" are paying "straight out" for everything else.

Educate yourself.

[eridani]

82. I signed up for this account the year I bought hearing aids

The hearing aids and also every vaguely medical expense was tax deductible for me that year. I decided to trade on my class privilege that year due to the expense of hearing aids.

[customerserviceguy]

83. I'm just taking advantage of a legal choice I have

I'm sorry that you feel that I should be part of a wasteful system that over-covers everything, practically forcing people to think they are fools if they don't get in to see the doctor every three months or so.

Your fire department analogy is probably apt. At some point, I'm no longer going to have the option to look out after myself, because I'm going to be forced to turn over my HSA before I'm dead just to subsidize the waste, fraud and abuse of the present system. Until the day we get true single payer, where the lawyers are cut out of the deal, I'm going to avail myself of my options as I see fit.

[eridani]

84. Systems that cover almost everything are the exact opposite of wasteful

Those would be the systems in other developed countries whose per capita health care costs are half of what ours are.

85% of the population in every age group is healthy, and they account for 15% of all costs. You've made a bet that you will stay in that large majority--but if you don't, you re going to totally fucked--just like the 15% seriously sick minority is right now.

[customerserviceguy]

85. When we get such a system, fine

However I think it's going to be a long time before we get rid of insurance bureaucrats and lawyers who see every doctor visit as a potential lottery ticket.

As was pointed out by another poster, my employer does provide catastrophic insurance, which would cover me if I did get totally wracked up. And I've got more than enough saved in the HSA to cover the high deductable and all co-pays.

If auto insurance paid for all oil changes, wheel alignments, and the occasional set of tires every three years, how much more would it cost?

[eridani]

86. Health insurance that covers most things for everyone is cheaper, period

That's what the experience of countries with real universal health care proves without a doubt.

[customerserviceguy]

87. Do those other countries have doctors that practice defensive medicine?

How much of a cut of a nation's healhcare spending in these countries goes to lawyers, and preventive protection from them?

[eridani]

88. Care to take a guess at what the average monthly GP malpractice premium is--

--elsewhere in the developed world? $100/month, and in Japan that is your medical association dues and includes the monthly journal. That is because patients mostly do not sue their doctors. And why don't they? Because health care is a GODDAM FUCKING HUMAN RIGHT in those countries. In the event of a poor outcome here or elsewhere (regardless of whether actual malpractice was involved or not), it is typical to incur very large extra health care expenses, and sometimes these continue for the rest of your life.

In civilized countries, people in that situation don't have to worry about paying because those costs are automatically covered. Here, victims looking for money to pay horrendous lifetime medical costs look around for deep pockets that they can hit up instead, hence all the lawsuits.

[customerserviceguy]

89. I'd like to see Federal malpractice insurance

If it's a good idea for mortgages, why not for doctors? Why not give discounts on it for the percentage of Medicaid and Medicare patients a doctor sees? If 100% of the patients a doctor treated were in those two programs, why not have them pay zero for malpractice insurance through such a program? It might be a good way to deal with the doc fix.

At least it sounds like you're agreeing with me that the risk of lawsuits is one major difference between the way we pay for healthcare in the US and the rest of the world. Perhaps you'll join me in recognizing that the money that goes to attorney fees, expert witnesses, and the tort system (besides paying for a plaintiff's medical care) is also part of the problem.

[eridani]

91. I don't agree that it's part of the problem. The problem is lack of guaranteed--

--universal heatlh care. If we had it, people would not look for people to sue in order to pay for extra health care expenses caused by bad outcomes, whatever the cause. Then malpractice premiums could be as low as they are in the rest of the developed world. Some countries also have government subsidies for malpractice insurance--federal malpractice insurance would be similar, and is a good idea IMO.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. For a bunch of people who claim to understand business, Republicans just don't get this...

Selling comprehensive health insurance coverage to people over 60 IS NOT a viable business. There's simply too much risk involved to offer a product at a price that wouldn't strain the budget of even upper middle class people who have saved well.

[truebluegreen]

58. Hmm. One would think that they don't care about the risk to the people,

but only about the risk to some insurance company's bottom line.

On the other hand, you WOULD think they'd know that Medicare only passed in 1965 because the insurance companies were happy to unload their most expensive customers.

But now, SOCIALISM!

[MoonchildCA]

59. I'd like to know exactly where you are getting your numbers from.

Kaiser has an online calculator (and there are plenty more to be found) for Obama care, and you can get an estimate of what you will be required to pay. For instance, a 48-year-old man making 60,000 a year (which, I'm sure refers to adjusted gross income), would pay a $6440 a year, and maximum out of pocket expenses, not including your premium would be $6225. That number does not go up no matter what income I enter. Yes, over $12,000 a year is quite a chunk, but it's unlikely that you would spend your maximum out of pocket every year. You would most certainly be chronically ill in that case, and unlikely to draw such a salary in the first place.

It seems that $46,000 earnings per year for a single person is the cap for the subsidy. This is based on area so it can vary--I think it is equivalent to 400% of poverty. With that income, 9.5% of your income is all you pay. The rest is subsidized. These percentages decrease as your income drops.

Here is the handy calculator:
http://healthreform.kff.org/Home/KHS/SubsidyCalculator.aspx?source=FS

It is called the Affordable Care Act for a reason. It is designed to be affordable. No, it's not perfect, and no where close to single-payer, but I believe once it kicks in people will see that it is an improvement over what we have.

Maybe I'm biased, I have "Obamacare" due to a pre-existing condition. I'm 50, pay $370 a month, and it's the best insurance I have ever had. I have a $1500 deductible; they pay 85%; maximum $2500 out-of-pocket; and $25 office co-pays. They approve everything, after all, it's for pre-existing conditions.

[gkhouston]

77. What is this thing you call insurance? n/t

[Turbineguy]

79. Things will be better

when the 99% are all bankrupted.

Apparently.

[littlewolf]

90. I do not think that "Obamacare" is going to affect me much.

retired Military, Tricare basic (no one where I live will take Tricare Prime)
for example the Dr. charges say 100. for something and Tricare pays 40. I pay the difference out of pocket.
I am lucky in that I am healthy, Arthur (as in Arthritis ) comes by and bothers me sometimes, but OTC handles him.
other then that, so far doing ok. Wife had her gallbladder out and we paid something like 300 dollars total. but I do not see where the new healthcare law is going to impact me, unless it drives Doctors out of the system.
Have heard stories about that, will see, I am doubtful.