General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis flippant attitude toward those harmed by the ACA will cost us 2014.
I'm a Democrat because I grew up believing that a high tide raises all boats. I believe that when the least among us suffers, we all suffer as a society. That goes for the poor, minorities, the differently abled.... and yes, those who are harmed when the government makes mistakes.
I've read how "uninformed" people are - in fact, there's a cute little picture making fun of them on DU's homepage right now. I've read how it's only a small minority that will feel the effects of the raise. I've read how they're all wealthy young people who don't want to pay their share. I've read how those who have to pay more should STFU because so many more will do better.
Well, all that is bullshit if there is a group of people who will be forced to choose between insurance and rent. And there will be.
There is a minority, yes a small minority, of people who make just enough to lose out on the subsidies provided by the ACA who are not covered their employers. And of this group, a sizable portion will fall within the dreaded 55-62 age bracket where the insurance companies can still gouge for outrageously costly policies. These are the people who now have shitty catastrophic plans because they can't afford anything else. They certainly can't afford an increase in their bills amounting to hundreds of dollars per month.
These are the people who will lose out on what little insurance they have and be charged a fine for their loss.
A faulty website means nothing in the long run. A week after it's fixed no one will remember it was ever down. But real people will be hurt by ACA if there is not a fix for those middle-aged people just making ends meet who will lose what little safety net they had because "good" Democrats care more about looking good than helping them.
These are the people that the republicans will have on TV day in and day out to talk about how the Democrats mocked their suffering.
I know this post won't be popular, but a real Democrat doesn't mock the suffering of others, they try to help them. It looks like some Dems are figuring this out - but not nearly enough, yet.
When 2014 comes around, it will be decided on whether the people of this country believe that Democrats can solve the problems that face so many, or if we are tied to 'big government' solutions that only help bureaucrats.
Right now, there's a group of citizens afraid that Reagan was right when he said the scariest words a person can hear are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." They're not worried about a website, they're frightened of losing what little they have.
We can be the party of uncaring big government or the party of solutions. Which will we choose?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LAGC
(5,330 posts)...versus the relatively few who lose their shitty plans and have to upgrade or pay the penalty.
I'm thinking the former will far outweigh the latter. But whether that translates into more votes for Democrats remains to be seen.
Off-year elections tend to favor the party who doesn't hold the presidency, so we have that working against us.
PhilosopherKing
(317 posts)Democrats need to chill.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I'm sure when it comes time to vote, those finding themselves having to pay a fine for not being able to afford insurance will pull the lever for the 'kewl candidate."
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Will more than make up for them.
Your post was about the impact on elections.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Who pay estimated tax returns. If they held the same cynical view and they refused to add in the single payer fee they'd be audited and jailed if they refused to pay the single payer mandate.
There will invariably be those who are hurt by any sort of social welfare that helps the better good. Always.
This is, in the end, an argument for right wing policies where those who don't want to contribute to society are those who are put on a pedestal.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)be negligible. Also, as I understood it, there is no provision in the law to throw people in jail who don't pay the small fine. Even the Repubs had discussed this only recently in the past couple of weeks, as if they just discovered that the enforcement provisions in the law have no teeth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023976059
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023954960
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)Per Person, not per family. add interest.
The enforcement provisions may not have "teeth" right now but as we can see, changes can be made overnight.
Anyone that thinks those provisions were put in for fun hasn't been paying attention.
When the Income Tax was rammed through no one ever expected the common working man to have to file a return and pay money out of their meager salary.
Now non filing/paying earns jail time.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The IRS already said they can't enforce the fine.
I was contrasting to single payer that wouldn't allow freeloaders and those who attempted to freeload would be committing tax fraud and be summarily jailed. People against the mandate don't understand this. Then, I don't put much stake in their ability to think rationally to begin with.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)it has occurred because of the malfeasance of GOP governors and legislatures and SCOTUS.
The vast majority of people "harmed" by the ACA are not unable to afford insurance...they're people like the lawyer here in DC that was complaining that her coverage was going to cost more because her do-nothing cheap policy was cancelled, better coverage was going cost her more and she made too much money to qualify for a subsidy. I have no sympathy for the name-partner of a white-shoes DC law-firm making $250K+ complaining about the ACA.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)but I know a few who claim their work with non-profits only nets them about $40k-$50k per year. I suppose the free food helps.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)This isn't the lawyer making $40k to rep NPOs, it's the one making $250K+ to rep the oil company suing the NPO because the NPO is impeding their plans to drill for oil in the wetlands.
She's the name partner of a K St. law firm.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I explicitly stated in my OP that I was talking about working class people from 55-62 who are just outside the range for subsidies yet will be forced to pay outrageous amounts for insurance or be fined for not being able to afford it.
But you glossed right over that to talk about some lawyer I never referred to. It takes an incredible lack of empathy to so blithely dismiss the people I wrote about but you managed to do it.
Congrats, I guess... 
Chan790
(20,176 posts)All of the people claiming to be the people you're citing have turned out to be either like the lawyer or people who were lying and actually benefited from the ACA. I'm disputing the reality you're talking about as being non-existent in fact. They don't exist, they just think they do. (It's like my mother thinking she's working class with her high-6-figure salary, 6k ft2 house, mint-condition 1974 Corvette and yearly vacations to Europe.) People not getting subsidies are people who don't need subsidies to afford insurance.
No. I'm not going to have empathy for them for being upper middle class to wealthy. They can afford it or else they'd be getting subsidies.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Add one child in his or her early twenties.
For income use $80,000. The cutoff point for subsidies is $78,000.
Silver plans range from $1000 to $1600
Gold plans range from $1200 to over $2000
Do you really think this is affordable? After-tax income for this family is around $5K per month. Do you think paying as much as 40% of one's income for health insurance is affordable?
treestar
(82,383 posts)health care. And if they make enough not to qualify for subsidies, they will be fine.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)their before-tax income on insurance? $2000 per month? You're good with that?
I wonder where you get the balls to say that they'll be fine? Throw in a $1400 mortgage, $6,000 in property taxes, some college tuition, and this family will be struggling. In fact, their best bet would be to stop producing and take menial jobs so that they'll get a hand up from the government.
But it's not you, so fuck them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)In their late 50s, their offspring are gone and done with college. Their mortgage is up to them, maybe it's beyond their means originally. They even get a tax credit. What is fucking them about their having good health insurance at an age they are likely to need it? They have enough money for everything else.
Why are you demanding sympathy for them when there are people who could not afford the coverage at all, let alone good coverage?
I don't make a lot. I have crappy non coverage. I'm single. I don't own a house, and could not afford one. So I'm supposed to feel bad for these people?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)That is the very definition of ignorance.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I've been around a while.
Nobody who owns real estate gets sympathy from those who will never be able to afford a house.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I would normally have empathy for someone who will never be able to afford a house, but for some reason I don't in this case. It might have something to do with the disgust I feel for those who demand sympathy but only want to drag others down to their level out of mindless envy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But the content of your post here is very right wing. Now you're saying I envy them? Yes, I do. I have worries they don't have. Maybe I should lift myself up by my bootstraps? Find a husband? Just make more money by working harder?
Right wingers enjoy the envy. They want it. That convinces them of their superiority.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)And the only one spewing republican bullshit is you. Repubs are driven by envy and hatred - just like your posts.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's been in the right wing arsenal for decades.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You should try reading, and even comprehending, what the discussion is about before opening your mouth and shitting all over it.
ChazII
(6,204 posts)Right now my home is paid for and property tax is just over $1,000 a year. I receive $2,700 each month for my retirement pay. As my son is learning disabled I chose have $1,000 of that amount put into the survivor benefit account each month that he will when I pass. My insurance is covered by the Arizona State Retirement System and will go up 5% for 2014. This year I have paid $714.00 each month for health coverage.
Thank you, last1standing.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)(and so is his girlfriend) and is working at Boston Market after 6 years and $250,000 worth of college that we slaved to put him through. Tragically, there are no fucking jobs for recent college grads. Massachusetts is one of the most expensive states to live in. An incredibly shitty house in an incredibly shitty neighborhood is $250K. Property taxes are fucking ridiculous. Decent food is fucking ridiculous. Cable TV and internet access is fucking ridiculous. Car insurance is fucking ridiculous. And now health insurance, if you're not lucky enough to be poor enough to merit subsidies, will be putting many people in my demographic into the poorhouse.
My wife and I combined make $87K before taxes. After federal, state, sales, property and excise taxes, and an auto insurance bill of $4K annually, we net maybe $4K per month. That's $48K annually.
And your still fine with a potential $24,000 annual health insurance bill? Half of our after tax income? Twenty-fucking-four fucking-thousand fucking dollars per fucking year? Is this what I busted my ass for for 37 years, to be fucking broke in my declining years?
Let me be perfectly clear about this: I would rather bleed to death out of my asshole in some E/R parking lot than pay that much for insurance. If I get hit with the Cancer stick, too bad. I'll fucking die, and until I do I'll ring up as much of a bill at the E/R as humanly possible before I do, and I hope it runs into the million$. I'll rent a fucking motel room across the street and fucking crawl through my own pus every day before I'll pay that much for insurance.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Half of 87K is an amount I'd love to have though. Must have to work a lot harder. Then I could pay for medical out of pocket. If you have your health, you have everything, so I'd put that first.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)The scenario I described is very real for this demographic. I don't see why or how a fair-minded person can just shrug it off as collateral damage so that others can be helped.
I can easily see this demographic jumping ship to kill the ACA before it kills them. Sorry that you can't see this.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That you lack the sympathy of people who make less money? It's a real struggle out there with no guaranteed paycheck. I don't "have mine" in the least.
It's also hard to believe the ACA is so bad for you, too. How can it be $2000 per month? You could do a medical savings account instead. Then just pick a really high deductible. Then the say 10K in the medical savings account could cover that rather than some plan costing 2K per month. Maybe you made a mistake somewhere? Maybe you qualify for the subsidy after all, or it's not really that much? I don't see how they'd have conceived of a plan that would cost half you after tax income and we'd have not heard about that before from the many ACA opponents on the board.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)unable to navigate the three questions on the Mass Health Connector website and browse the plans available.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But now I realize how lucky I am. I wouldn't be as unhappy as you and your wife and that kid - wouldn't wish it on myself at all.
Now you should vote Republican, so as to hope Obamacare is repealed. Sounds like you had it bad before that but now it's going to be really miserable.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)yes, middle class - people are going to fall into, then you're either too lazy to look at the numbers yourself, or too ignorant to understand their significance. Sadly, I can't help you with either of those problems, so I guess we're done.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Should it be repealed due to the people who fall through its cracks?
I guess it is a question of whether society at large will benefit.
Single payer would be better, but how to get it with all the tea party ignoramuses who claim to love their current bare bones plan, or the one their employer just sticks them with? All the people who are healthy and sure it's never going to happen to them?
davekriss
(4,616 posts)Was it comparable coverage? If you didn't carry insurance then, then you can risk going without now and pay the relatively small penalty.
I saw this coming from the first days the KFF Subsidy Calculator became available: the ACA has a premium cliff designed into it. Make 399% of the poverty line and receive a subsidy that approaches 50%. Make 401% and receive zero. The difference can be $5,000+ in your demographic, which is very hard to swallow.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)and having empathy for your fellow neighbors is a good thing. Otherwise why bother with anything because then we have a dog eat dog world that benefits nonone.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)The premiums are too expensive for even lousy coverage, and the deductibles make them useless.
Medicaid is nothing but a loan where you sign off your estate to repay the loan. It is NOT free.
ACA is NOT a good deal except for insurance companies and large corporations that will surely ditch their health insurance plans altogether to fatten their coffers. That's always been the goal with the legislation.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)AND represents big business oil against the little guy.
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)If a choice was needed then either they are paying way to much for rent or they don't make enough and should get a subsidy.
Well, all that is bullshit if there is a group of people who will be forced to choose between insurance and rent.
christx30
(6,241 posts)$100 or $200 can mean the difference between living in a simi-ok neighborhood and living in the dumps. I'm serious here. Check out Austin, Tx (where I live). Chasewych Dr has a duplex there for $800 per month. Now check out Night Star dr. That's $600 per month. Just a $200 difference. Which one would you rather live? Where would you rather raise your children? I've lived on Night Star for 3 years now. We've had stabbings. I've had to call the cops twice for violent crime. People coast down the road at 3 in the AM blasting music out of their cars at full volume. I don't want my kids to have to live here. But I can't afford to move elsewhere. And now that my insurance is going up,
But people like me don't matter, do we? "You'll take what we give you, and like it." Do you know what I see when I see posts like yours? A reason to stay home on election day. You have your view of the world. Things that you want for the world. And anyone that get flattened on the way there is either doing something wrong, lying, or doesn't matter.
A subsidy is nice. If you qualify for one. But just because you don't qualify, doesn't mean you can necessarily afford what the law is mandating. And that dooms families like mine to Night Star. And Chasewych is a dream that will never come through.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You should happily offer up your last $200 so that the program works. Otherwise, Obama might look bad and we can't have that happen.
Think of the children (not yours, of course).
christx30
(6,241 posts)No. What's going to destroy the ACA is the fact that it was written for the benefit of the insurance companies, with no consideration to the people that have to pay the bill every month.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)ACA could be saved but too many would rather see it sink than to admit they were wrong.
functioning_cog
(294 posts)we are flippant because the vast majority being spouted on cable and broadcast news have been demonstrably proven as false or inaccurate.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... it's probably because you're a self employed young man - maybe 3% of the population. Only about 40% of them would have voted for us anyway.
The law creates winners and losers. Elections are a numbers game and there are far more winners than losers.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)How can we guarantee that they have no family or friends who care about them, and that they are timid enough to avoid the media?
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)However; during the campaign the number 30m uninsured was tossed around. I suspect once things get settled we will have around 22-23 million still uninsured.
Unlike many on this board I don't for a second confuse access to health insurance to access to health care, but the insurance companies paid well for their new membership rolls according to opensecrets.org, so even an increase of 8m or so million is still a profit.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If we don't care about the minority of "losers" as you call them, we don't deserve to win.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Your post was about the impact in 2014 elections.
85% of public not impacted by ACA in any way
13-14% better off
1-2% worse off
Tell me how that is bad for 2014?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)All you can do is point out that a minority will be harmed and how that makes for a win in 2014. My post is about how that flippancy is exactly what will cost the election.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)did not have decent options available before the ACA. Get real.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Get empathy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to address this problem?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If you want to read the answer, I've posted it in response to another of your spammed responses. If you just want to spam the thread, I'll put you on ignore.
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)for 55+ who don't qualify for subsidies. It's 1/2 their after tax income. It will put millions in the poorhouse.
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)So "It will not put millions in the poorhouse."
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)Your talking about people who already have insurance because they can afford it. A little increase won't kill them. But like I said, 47,000 people die every year because they can't afford insurance. ACA is changing that.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)My wife and I pay $900 per month for an employer plan with $0 deductibles, $0 co-pays, and no limits. In other words, a really, really, good plan by any conceivable metric, and actually far better than any plan available under the ACA.
Under the ACA, a much worse plan would go for $2600 per month for a plan that still has large copays and deductibles. This is entirely because of our age (57) and our income ($87K), which falls outside of the limits at which subsidies apply.
We don't have a second home, or expensive cars, and our vacation is a car drive to a public beach.
If you think middle class people have an extra $1700 lying around every month, out of a net income of $4,000, you're seriously out of touch. Large numbers of hard-working, squarely middle-class families are getting screwed to a fare-thee-well by the ACA pricing. They will not have insurance because they will not be able to afford a decent plan.
In other words, it's not you, so fuck them.
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)From $900 to $2600 a month bullshit.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Gold plans for a 57 y/o couple with a 24 y/o child and an income of $87K.
I'll be waiting for your reply, but I'm pretty sure you'll be scooting along after you see the pricing.
Until then, you shouldn't post when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)$200 less than your paying now.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)With the age 24, the Gold plan is about $1200 to $2200 a month.
But they say Massachusetts on average is higher than the ACA. $1,200 vs. $695 for an individual.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-semro/comparing-the-affordable-care-act_b_1974586.html
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)It also varies by zip, as I got $1600 to $2607. Wouldn't you agree that that is not an affordable plan?
PlanetaryOrbit
(155 posts)Many families have to make ends meet on an income of less than half of that.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)$87K is *nothing* around here. I believe we're second only to California in housing costs and overall cost of living.
But at least your honest in your disdain for such mind-boggling wealth. I'm sure you'll sleep soundly knowing that such privilege will be punished by exorbitant health care costs for such filthy rich seniors.
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)20 plus % in taxes
25% of income for house is standard
now 25% for healthcare
////////////////////
if the dems expect people to be happy with only getting 30% of their income to pay for car,fuel,utilities ect...that is a losing idea
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Yes, there are poorer families, but they will be heavily subsidized by the ACA. The median income family will not be subsidized one cent.
Is the goal of the ACA to make everyone uniformly poor?
karadax
(284 posts)The relationships between cost of living, wages and location.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And, now I can move to a better plan if I need to. Plus, a lot of folks are getting options they never had. Need to tweak some things still in next few months that even obstructionists know is wrong, and go for major improvements longer term.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)it's absolutely bad for Dem prospects.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The right is going to find someone who is harmed by the law and put him (and it will be a 'him') on TV every single day.
I'd be willing to bet that 3 million young men will have their insurance costs go way up. It should be no surprise because that was the intent of the law. Of those 3 million young men, 40% (1.2 million) would have voted for democrats. Of that group 40% (500k) will turn out to vote. Half of that group (250k) won't be helped by subsidies.
That's a quarter-million voters at risk of alienation, but anyone who is familiar with the law should have seen this coming. We need to get insurance to the uninsured and working poor and put them on TV - not talking heads who already have insurance whining about a website that they've never visited and have no reason to visit doesn't work.
treestar
(82,383 posts)than we have, just because they perceive they will "lose" by shifting more of their funds to health care than they apparently wanted to? Plus they may not realize it's to their own advantage. Most healthy people think it's never going to happen to them. They are the ones lacking in empathy.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)You know who would "win" aka survive instead of die if the U.S. had universal health care? We all would "win".
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)The ones being flippant are the talking heads that are pretending to care about these people when all they really want is to screw all of us by getting rid of the ACA.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)That is far worse than being "flippant" that is hurting thousands of people just to score political victories.
HijackedLabel
(80 posts)and they lose everything over their hissyfit.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Like you, I've been told to chill, all will work out. The people, apparently at least 50.1% in the important races, will side with us.
As for me, I keep wondering how the fuck we plan to win when we can't get our heads in the game. Our only hope is that the Republicans are dumber than we are, but how much longer can that last?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)My party actually cared about those in the minority. It cared about people working hard just to keep their heads above water. It cared about doing the right thing over winning PR battles.
My Democratic party enacted social security then fixed the problems that hurt people. It enacted Medicare then fixed its problems. This 'New-Democrat' party seems to only care about how much money it can collect for the next media blitz.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Problems with SS took years to fix... same with Medicare.
You're the one being flippant.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)about all of those who will be helped by the ACA.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You don't seem to care one ounce of shit about them.
Disgusting.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)do you propose be done?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I propose taking another look at the outlays involved for working class people who are currently just outside the subsidies range or still won't be able to make ends meet with partial subsidies and providing assistance. Those who are turned down for aid should have a due process right to some sort of review so that a final decision can be based on real numbers.
How would you like to be a middle aged person with what should be decent income, but higher debt, now being told that the government demands you pay over $1000/month for the insurance you couldn't afford before the program started? Where does that money magically come from? I know very few people with that kind of extra income.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)One can still buy non-ACA compliant plans outside of the exchanges, you just have to pay the penalty in addition.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You obviously have an agenda that you feel you need to push. Unless you can comment on what I proposed to fix this issue and stop spamming the thread, I'm going to have to put you on ignore.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That would require passage in the House.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)There is a problem that must be fixed if the entirety of the ACA isn't to be repealed. You can either focus on demanding the changes or be complicit in the destruction.
Your choice but I'm done talking to you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)whose aims are virtually identical to the wingnuts in the GOP.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)40 million helped
4 million hurt
How's that hurt us come election time again?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The 40 million helped would probably vote for us anyway. The four million may have, but now it's a big question.
But there is more. Of the 40 million you mention, how many of them are going to blame us when they call the list of covered providers, and can't get an appointment because the doctors aren't taking new patients? Remember the President gets blamed if gas prices go up, if a factory goes bankrupt, or if a house gets foreclosed upon.
So figure we have the potential to lose between 4 and 8 million votes. That is those who have lost their insurance and are furious with the Democratic Party for lying to them, and those who get the "awesome" insurance, only to find that despite the hype, they're no better off because preventative care means that you have to get in to see someone. Plus friends and relatives and those swayed by the argument that the Democratic Party lied.
President Obama won re-election with about 5 million votes, so the loss of the four puts the election of 2016 in serious play, and sets up a problem with the congressional in 2016. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php
Now, do you see the problem? Or are you going to continue to pretend that all is well? Because by my thinking, we can either seriously consider this situation, and try to come up with solutions for it, or we can be really surprised next November when we slam into the wall face first and attach the word Former to the title Majority Leader to Senator Reid's honorific. Oh we'll moan and wail and gnash our teeth at the stupid people who voted that way, but the result will be that the last two years of President Obama's term in office will be a battle to see what we can salvage, not what gains we can make. But you decide how you approach it.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)for quite sometime. I think the key is in a section of your post -- hitting mostly 55-62 year olds. We're "geezers" don't 'cha know. Followed closely by, and this is the REALLY disgusting one, (I just read one of these in LBN and got ridiculed when I objected), "ah, they'll just die off and we won't have to hear about it anymore." The context was different (racism) but the meaning is the same -- wishing older people would just fuck off and die.
My husband and I have been struggling with the numbers since October 1, trying to figure out how the hell we're going to afford a premium on an already stretched-to-the-limit budget. Buying a plan that would actually cover anything would cost us over $700 a month. We don't HAVE $700 a month. We can buy a plan for about $390 but it doesn't fucking cover anything. I don't know what the solution is. I'm sitting here right now with untreated pneumonia, trying to figure out how the hell I can afford the X-rays. I can pull of the money for the doctors visit and I can pull off the money for the antibiotics but the doctor won't prescribe them without the X-ray. If I bought the cheap insurance, I'd be out of pocket for pretty much all of it anyway PLUS I'd be paying in premiums for insurance that doesn't cover anything.
And I can tell you, being told to STFU does NOT help.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)But I'm not paying a premium for it.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Get no plan at all for 2014 will cost you $95 penalty.
Based on your financial situation, you likely are eligible for subsidies, so it wont cost you $700 month.... likely less than the $390 you said is in your budget as well.
Your worse case scenario looks exactly like 2013 for you, minus $95.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)what my situation is? I am eligible for subsidies and that's great. But I have a choice of paying out of pocket $370 a month for a policy that doesn't cover anything. As it stands, if I had that policy right now the co-pay is so high and the deductible is so high all of this would be out-of-pocket anyway, PLUS I'd be paying a premium of $370.-00 a month which would be stretching my budget to the limit. The one policy that actually would pay something is $700 a month with subsidies but if I'm having a problem coming up with $370 a month, how in the hell am I supposed to come up with $700.00 a month?
THIS is what the OP is talking about. Treating us like we're idiots and dismissing our very real concerns. Thanks a lot and please, don't bother to post another self-righteous answer. I'm fucking sick of them. LITERALLY!
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)And down $95.
Granted that's $95 you would like to have, I am sure... but that's the worst case scenario for you.
And there are catastrophic plans that cover SOMETHING which are much less than $390.
Do they cover a lot? No.... but that's more than you have in 2013.
Obviously it would be nice to have explanded Medicare for folks like you.
But you said you had no coverage at all for 2013. So ANY coverage is an improvement.
And if you don't like any of the options that are less than $390... it will cost you $95 in penalty... $8/month.
kiva
(4,373 posts)Gee, no useable insurance and pay the penalty...but hey, no one will really mind, they'll be happy to vote Dem next year.
And by the way, it's not about the $95, it's about the party being willing to walk away from from people in this situation, shrugging and saying 'hey, too bad but not our problem'.
christx30
(6,241 posts)and treats you like crap, I wouldn't blame you at all for staying home on election day. Obama won by 5 million votes. Enough of people like you and I stay home, those Dem senators and presidential candidates will end up going home instead of Washington DC. Then the republicans get into power, the ACA gets repealed, and we're back to square one.
"You can have a useless plan for nearly $400 a month or you can pay 95% or 1% of your income for nothing at all!" Wow! Those are amazing options. Sign me up! 
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)I am responding to what YOU say your situation is.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)How selfish you are!
You should take that money and pay for your insurance. Then when you get sick you can look at the high deductible and think how luck you are that if you had the money to pay it you could actually see a doctor.
$4440/year seems like a fair price to pay for insurance you can't afford to use.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)for it, which seems to be your plan.
You are really all that put out by 7$ a month?
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)besides pneumonia I have a growth on my skull the size of a golf ball and it goes all the way back to the back of my head. And it just keeps growing. I've no idea what it is. See? That's why I need insurance so if it's something serious at least SOME of the treatment will be paid for. But yeah, the answer is easy, pay $95.00 and be done with it. See? No problemo! 
The arrogance you show makes me sick to my stomach.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)to deal with whatever is going on, you could still enroll without being blackballed for having a pre-existing.
That is one way you are better off than last year. Another is that IF you chose to get insurance, it would be cheaper. If you are very concerned about your health, it would be good to look over your budget and make it a priority to enroll for a while. It sucks. It has also sucked for many years for many of us who were insured, but constantly denied coverage. Loads of us have been paying in quite a bit for years and got very little back. Not going to apologize about being happy about that changing.
Until there is single payer, do what you can to take care of yourself.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Which is more than the nothing you had before.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)There was a time when Democrats looked after the working classes and those left behind. Now, the New Democrat Party looks after those most able to put money in their pockets.
As you've read in this thread, minority groups, especially poor ones, can go to Hell. It costs money to attend this party.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)people are twisting themselves into to dismiss any and all problems with the ACA rollout as R/W talking points.
First, there was no problem with Healthcare.gov. Anyone who had problems was either an idiot or a whiner. Then, yeah, there may be slight problems, but it's just due to the massive popularity of the site. Soon people were comparing it to an M1 Abrams battle tank or an F-35 fighter jet. WTF? Finally, we've arrived at the point where some have convinced themselves that all the problems are caused by Republicans attacking the site with DoS attacks. Riiiiiight.
As you note, all these problems may be forgotten when it matters, and I hope that's the case. But the arrogance with which I see people dismissing those who are faced with huge increase in their insurance costs is disturbing. No one knows the individual circumstances of these 'losers' and fucking them over and calling them idiots and rich assholes who don't know what's best for themselves is idiotic and smacks of the 'fuck you, I got mine' attitudes of the REAL rich assholes who only look out for themselves.
I'm 57 y/o, and fortunate enough to have a spouse with an excellent family insurance plan. But if I didn't, and made a few bucks more than the point at which subsidies kick in, I'd be faced with crushing insurance costs.
I support the ACA, reluctantly, and would have much preferred an expansion of Medicare for the whole population. But there are some people whose wallets are going to be hit hard, and they're going to remember who was holding the broom handle when they were getting fucked. Given how incredibly close recent elections have been, with the winner being decided by just a few points, we can't afford to write off anyone as collateral damage.
And the sheer glee with which some posters have been celebrating the fucking over of this group, well, I won't even go there. Suffice it to say that DU is sometimes one of the nastiest places on the internet. The fucking hate here for fellow citizens is just... Disturbing. I only stay here for the small percentage of people who are truly brilliant and thoughtful. The rest are just schoolyard bullies.
Edit: I just now checked the Massachusetts Health Connector site. For my family of 3 with $87K annual income, gold plans range from $1200 to over $2000 per month. Real affordable, huh? Fuck you if you think we have that kind of money left over at the end of the month. And fuck you some more if you think we're living high off the hog in Massachusetts with that income.
Edit #2: My,wife has over $900 deducted per month from her paycheck for the (decent) family plan we have now, and another $90 for a shitty dental plan.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)There's a vicious hatred for anyone who dares to point out that this plan isn't the most perfectest, wonderfulest, program ever to be graciously given to the ungrateful whiners who just want to whine about rent and food.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)I do believe that if some of this lot were turned loose on a person with just a few more bucks than they have, or heaven forbid, a dissenting opinion, they would literally tear said person limb from limb or burn them alive.
And I'm not even joking. At its best, DU is a big schoolyard with the usual assortment of louts and bullies. At its worst, it's an echo chamber where the slightest deviation from far-left doctrine is met with an onslaught of sheer hate.
Ah well. I'm just an old hippie reared in the era of peace and love and compassion. Thankfully I'll be dead soon.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)This DU poll kind of surprised me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023085602
The loathing comes from somewhere else, not really from money or the lack of it.
KG
(28,751 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)I am on Medicare but checked out of curiosity what I would pay if 60 yrs old.
I chose one of the lower levels and it was still 700. A month no subsidies.
I was shocked and very thankful I'm old enough for Medicare.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)ChazII
(6,204 posts)and articulate response.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)...this argument is old.
My payments from single payer would've gone from $0 to $800 a month. With penalty of jail time if I refused to comply.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The Washington State Health Security Trust costs out to $100/$150 per month per adult 18-65 (NO deductibles), and $50 to $100/month for those on Medicare (where it would essentially be a Medigap plan with first dollar coverage and cheaper drug coverage). The other source would be a 10-12% tax on business payrolls about $500K/year and a 1-1.2% for payroll less than that.
A truly national plan would be even cheaper because it would be able to incorporate Medicare from the start and because there would be far more clout with negotiating drug prices.
If you forgot the sarcasm smilie in your post, I apologize.
Democat
(11,617 posts)If you are this concerned about a few DUers not being polite to 3% of people who may have to pay more for better health care, are you also concerned about how DUers treat the 1%?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)My entire OP was based on the need to fix the ACA so that a small minority of working class people don't get screwed over. Somehow you managed to misread it to suggest that I'm worried about trust-fund babies.
Are you so sure of your finances that you know you'll never be 60 years old and working class?
quadrature
(2,049 posts)'better' means what?
...maternity coverage for men, who also
pay a $6000 deductible and 40% co-pay?
treestar
(82,383 posts)what with all this socialism going on. Where's our empathy?
It's a thing Republicans do. They don't expect sympathy. They just want to brag that they don't qualify for subsidies. The richer people are, the more likely they are to complain about their high taxes. It's a form of showing off.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)It's called math.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)I really don't recognize the party anymore. Drone strikes, 24/7 surveillance, bank bailouts, so called "Free Trade" agreements and mandatory insurance.
And if you aren't on board with the above, you're somehow a winger or a fool.
It's like the "Mirror Mirror" episode of Star Trek where Kirk beamed back into an alternate universe and Spock was wearing a van dyke beard. And everything was the opposite of what it was supposed to be.
The least the party could have done is concentrate on Jobs before Mandates. But the word Jobs only appears around elections. And if a Republican had passed a law that required everyone to buy corporate insurance without a promised public option - and had doctors and nurses arrested for attending a hearing on single payer- not a single person here would support it. To think otherwise is truly absurd.
Strange days. And soon the payback for printing up $80 billion per month to buy bankers dirty paper (fraud) will start.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Glad to know I'm not the only one!
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Don't sit there and act like you give two shits about the poor & working class and then turn around and tear down the ACA, which will help thousands of people who, prior to the ACA, had zero options outside of using the ER for services. You sit there and bemoan liberals for being dismissive of some bs claims and that is exactly what you are doing here for the entire legislation. So, please, don't pretend you care about people with preexisting conditions or those who risk reaching their lifetime cap because it's clear with your bitter, ugly tone you don't care if they suffer or not.
Get real. Your whining is truly pathetic.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It is not helpful and and adds nothing of value to the thread.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I don't see this poster showing any empathy toward the millions of poor Americans who will benefit from this legislation. They don't count, I guess.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)paying. Everyone counts. The states that did not expand medicaid leaving millions of poor without ..those people count too. We are supposed to be able to do nuance and not black and white thinking. An adult conversation can account for all the angles of a problem without resorting t over the top language. I know it is an emotional topic but I hope we can rationally have a conversation about it. Pretending this plan is perfect will not help anyone and hinder fixing what needs to be fixed so all benefit.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I'm going to put you on ignore since you can't control yourself.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... the polling for ACA was mildly positive before the rollout and is now mildly negative.
2 months ago I had no doubts about the future of this program now I do.
There is a reason Obama is apologizing left and right and making fresh promises. If this thing isn't up and running mostly smoothly within a couple of months IT IS TOAST and you can bank on that.
elfin
(6,262 posts)She was edging closer in the past few years since she married a Rethug.
She has been on the previous Wisconsin version of high risk insurance due to a divorce and pre-existing condition preventing regular coverage.
She is wealthy and really liked the policy. I believe her when she said it was good Then Walker decided the state didn't have to be involved any more so go to ACA. She got the cancellation letter from Blue Cross and found out her premiums would rocket and she is PISSED and doesn't blame Walker or Blue Cross, but does blame Obama and Democrats even though she could well afford the new premiums.
She used to be liberal and just cut me off when I tried to explain. Used to be a very close friend and my suspicions were confirmed today when she "shared" something conservative and hate filled about welfare takers on FB this morning. NEVER did that kind of stuff before.
So yes, I think we could be in real trouble in 14 over this mess.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are suffering because of the ACA, unless you think they're not going to get sick.
These are the very people who were getting gouged before or who were buying junk insurance through the individual market.
You're essentially whining that people who are all but guaranteed to need medical care can't throw money away on insurance that won't cover their medical needs anyways.
And, of course, their insurers can continue those plans if they choose. So, what are you complaining about again?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)But that isn't really what you're arguing anyway. You're flippantly dismissing these people because they don't matter to you. They lack value. As another of your sort stated upthread, you're just being utilitarian. Once these people die off, everything will be fine.
We'll see how that works out.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)junk insurance scams does not outweigh the law's benefits.
You and Fred Upton obviously disagree.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)And Fred Upton and I usually disagree. Too bad you can't say the same.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)From paying over $300/mo for a junk catastrophic policy ($10,000 deductible! nothing else) to $240/mo for a "real" policy.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)eom
last1standing
(11,709 posts)When the Democrats start piling up losses the sensible woodchucks who are now claiming nothing's wrong will be screaming its because we didn't support their fuck ups loudly enough.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)ACA will decide that, although they are happy to have insurance, most for the first time ever, they will still vote to punish Democrats over a donut-hole that includes a relatively small number of people who it has been determined can afford to purchase insurance without a subsidy?
Riiiiiiiiiiight....
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)a few million votes here and there won't matter in the least.
Prism
(5,815 posts)There are also the working and middle class who will have to scrape the premiums out of a budget with no room for it, even with subsidies.
And then there is the high deductible insurance no one will be able to actually use.
Then will come the doctor crunch followed by the cancelled and dropped policies of the employer mandate.
I should have invested in sand futures, because the number of heads burrowing into it is breathtaking.
What we're witnessing is the Foxification of the partisan Democrat. Only media outlets saying what we want to be true are to be trusted. Propaganda is to be repeated at every turn (insurance = care). When met with facts, scream like a lunatic and claim it's all a right-wing plot. Pretend even the most objective fuck-ups are actually stirring political victories.
It would one of the most hilariously absurd and entertaining political meltdowns I've ever witnessed if I wasn't startling aware of all we have to lose in 14/16.
Keep shitting on the losers. We'll ride assholery to victory! Yay!
Good freakin grief.
I'm with you. The party I joined, one of empathy, is little in evidence in this fiasco.
This should be its own OP
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I remember the woodchuck brigade shouting down every thread with "Pass it now, fix it later!" Well, now IS later and the very same posters are here claiming that there's nothing wrong with the ACA so all us whiners should STFU.
Prism
(5,815 posts)And if 2014 is a train wreck, it will be all the media's fault.
Epistemological closure to the nth degree.
QC
(26,371 posts)it will be because of the extreme left (aka mainstream Democrats in the mold of FDR and Bobby Kennedy), which is both irrelevant and supremely powerful.
Same as it ever was.
Nice to see you again!
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one is. People who think they are harmed are people who can afford it.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)They're all wealthy whiners so fuck them.
Good luck with that next year.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What empathy to they have for poorer people, who they are helping to cover, and that by spending more towards their own health care? Or stupid people who think they are rich and just bragging. They have enough money. Where is there and your empathy for people who can't afford to insure themselves?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Empathy isn't only for those who agree with us, but you'd have to have some before you would understand.
As for my empathy for people who can't afford to insure themselves, that's exactly what I'm talking about here. However, since you've decided to believe that there aren't people falling through the cracks of the ACA there's little else for me to say.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are boasting Republicans who want to pretend they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires. And now you're demanding sympathy for them. Oh they probably pay higher taxes, too. Poor things. I wish I made enough money to pay more in taxes.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)But as I can see now that this is all about you 'getting yours' and fuck anyone else, I think we're done.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'm saying they have more than I do, so how can that be? You've really twisted things inside out, here.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)and can't afford to subsidize other people?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"This flippant attitude toward those harmed by the ACA will cost us 2014."
...is being "harmed."
The insurance companies tried to pull a fast one and the media spin that the policies being canceled meant these people were "losers" fed the BS.
The fact is that most of the people in this group will find better and equally or more affordable plans on the exchange.
300,000 Floridians' health policy cancellations undone
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024042968
The reason the insurance industry tried to spin the current proposal to allow people to keep the plans as a problem is because they knew they were exposed. You can best believe that many of those people are now shopping the exchanges.
House Republicans take 47th vote to repeal Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024039493
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)for those already encumbered with previously-made financial obligations, mortgages or rent, and some
adjustment will have to be made in order for them to have health coverage they can afford.
We've seen people lose their homes to pay for health care, but to see them lose homes to pay for health care insurance is absurd.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)The New Democrats in this thread want to force people who are barely making ends meet, if that, to suddenly come up with up to $2000 each month like anyone has that kind of extra income going spare.
It is those people who will be responsible when the ACA fails, but they will never be willing to admit it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)not for someone poor, but for someone whose mortgage,schooling, etc., who makes a lot of money, who would have to relocate or quit school, give up their car, etc.
The poor always get some kind of break, but this clause would be for someone who actually looks rich in some peoples eyes, who would default in payments in losing one or two paychecks, no savings to fall back on, and they may carry only catastrophic insurance...(or life with the mortgage).
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Starting 2014, most people must have health coverage or pay a fee (the “individual shared responsibility payment”). You can get an exemption in certain cases.
The individual shared responsibility payment
If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee known as the individual shared responsibility payment.
The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher.
In 2014 the payment for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285.
You make the payment when you file your 2014 taxes, which are due in April 2015.
Exemptions from the payment
Under certain circumstances, you won’t have to make the individual responsibility payment. This is called an “exemption.”
You may qualify for an exemption if:
- You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
- The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income
- You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit.)
- You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
- You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
- You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
- You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you
- You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.
If you have any of the circumstances below that affect your ability to purchase health insurance coverage, you may qualify for a “hardship” exemption:
- You were homeless.
- You were evicted in the past 6 months or were facing eviction or foreclosure.
- You received a shut-off notice from a utility company.
- You recently experienced domestic violence.
- You recently experienced the death of a close family member.
- You experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property.
- You filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months.
- You had medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last 24 months.
- You experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member.
- You expect to claim a child as a tax dependent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child. In this case, you do not have the pay the penalty for the child.
- As a result of an eligibility appeals decision, you’re eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time period when you weren’t enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace.
- You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
If you are applying for an exemption based on: coverage being unaffordable; membership in a health care sharing ministry; membership in a federally-recognized tribe; or being incarcerated:
- more -
https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/
Much more information:
All Topics
https://www.healthcare.gov/all-topics/
last1standing
(11,709 posts)That doesn't seem like a great strategy to me. It also doesn't help cover a group of people who need healthcare more than most.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That doesn't cover those who are just making ends meet till the law forces them to default."
It's like people are making up scenarios. When did this happen? Since the law hasn't gont into effect, where is the evidence for this?
Lars39
(26,108 posts)We're talking about people who want to buy real insurance(not catastrophic) that will actually pay, but who cannot afford it because they are already paying off medical bills. Personal budgets only stretch so far.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"We're talking about people who want to buy real insurance(not catastrophic) that will actually pay, but who cannot afford it because they are already paying off medical bills. Personal budgets only stretch so far."
You seem to be talking about people who would be eligible for Medicaid or subsidies. These are exemptions for people who can't afford it for financial reasons.
Lars39
(26,108 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Refusal to see that there are people who have fallen thru the cracks *will not fix the problems.*"
...will complaining for the sake of complaining. There are hardship exemptions for people who don't want to buy insurance, but millions of Americans are uninsured and could gain access to coverage if not for asshole Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024044297
Lars39
(26,108 posts)questionseverything
(9,646 posts)to pay the 95 bucks or get an exemption?
and then what? we just die?
upthread tree said he wants every1 that owns a house to leave the dems...is that the official dem party line now?
the premiums plus out of pocket expenses are 25-33 % on every plan/price range over subsidy amount i have checked...is the official dem party line that you think thats acceptable?
the costs are the problem
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)and the interest grows by the hour.
One must apply to be granted an exemption. Many will think they aren't required to buy insurance but will fail to apply for exemption. They will be surprised when the total is due.
Edit to add: That's per person, not per family.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The one where you could:
a) pretend that you as a 50-65 year old would never get sick, and then when you do get sick, go bankrupt paying for your own care until you have nothing left to pay, and then hope the emergency room care you get that the rest of us will pay for keeps you alive;
or
b) get gouged by an insurance company for whatever they chose to charge you for an expensive shitty plan that they can price you out of as soon as you actually do get sick, and then see (a).
Just sign here:
BKH70041
(961 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:55 PM - Edit history (1)
They go from thread to thread telling the same lies. I hope they get a discount on knee pads and dental floss to get the pubes from between the few teeth they do have.
gulliver
(13,179 posts)The vast majority will be people who would qualify for Medicaid but who are living in Republican-controlled states.
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)Most people who will be getting the shaft live in states who didn't take Medicaid. I wish there were a way Obama could let them buy on the exchange at the maximum subsidized rate but I guess he doesn't have that kind of discrepancy.
There are, however, a lower (but much more vocal and likely to vote) number of people who will see an increase in their premiums because, well, often because their insurance company decided they just could do it, using the ACA as cover, but they are going up nonetheless, and we have to deal with it and find a way to help them out.
The ACA cost Dems preciously in 2010 and could end up doing so again in 2014. The worst case scenario is that the Rs grab the Senate, House and Presidency in 2016; it would be 2017 before anything could be done and hopefully too many people will be covered by then for the ACA's repeal to be politically possible. Obama will stick to his guns even if the party takes a hit in 2014 because this is his legacy. I believe he knows that in the long run this was the right thing to do. Right now people who don't make very much will for the first time ever be able to afford health care as it should be. But then I believe health care is a right and not a privilege.
Yes there need to be fixes, especially for the poor but also some who want to keep their cheaper policies, and surely those should be ironed out in the next few years. The Clintons will see to it if nothing else.
TBF
(32,029 posts)I am so sick of this holier-than-thou "middle class" attitude. Do you know how many are uninsured right now? Do you give a crap? No, you're just worried you might have to pay a few dollars extra.
My family pays approx. $2500 a month for our insurance (good coverage, no pre-authorizations, dental, vision etc). We pay this because we are fortunate to have a decent income and we feel it is right to subsidize our employees so their contributions are much less.
We need more of that type of thinking - "how do I help someone who is less fortunate". I am so sick of the privileged "but what am I going to get out of it" mode of thinking.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)You have insurance (you smugly note how good it is) yet you don't give a fuck for those who won't be able to afford even shitty insurance but will be forced to pay a fine to make sure someone else is covered.
Brilliant.
TBF
(32,029 posts)Single payer would be the best option but ACA is the best improvement we've had in some time. 48 million people uninsured is 48 million too many.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again.html?_r=0
Try some facts instead of attacks and insults. But then that won't work with your agenda will it?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)But I have an agenda.
By the way, you continue to state that I'm only thinking of myself when I'm neither in the age bracket I'm writing about, nor will I require insurance through the ACA.
You should really try to gather facts before spewing ignorant comments at others. That kind of thing makes a person look really stupid.
TBF
(32,029 posts)although I certainly understand it is your primary focus and all you care about.
48 million uninsured - you won't acknowledge that fact and that shows me very clearly what your agenda is.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Since you can't acknowledge that you were wrong when you posted bullshit about me, you go on ignore. I don't have time for the purposely uninformed.
TBF
(32,029 posts)Rather than slinging your personal insults and anti-ACA right-wing talking points, you tell me what we should do about 48 million uninsured.
You've managed to turn every single one of your posts to me into a personal insult while ignoring 48 MILLION UNINSURED. Why is that?
dogman
(6,073 posts)I just don't believe this will be an issue once the manufactured story wears down. Then again it might last forever like the war on Christmas.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Where did you get this information? Are you certain that those making just enough to not get subsidies are all republicans who hate everyone else?
dogman
(6,073 posts)The people affected would show their empathy by paying a little extra now and then reap the benefits when they are older. If the ACA had been enacted immediately it would have meant over $100,000 in wages to me personally. In order to keep my insurance I was forced to take an early retirement. Where is there empathy for me? I never said they were Republicans, but with their attitude I think it is a safe bet that many are.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)In fact, some will not only lose their shitty coverage, they will pay a fine for the privilege of doing so. So instead of being covered with a half-assed policy, they will pay to have nothing - at a time in life when healthcare is becoming more important.
We shouldn't let these people fall through the cracks.
dogman
(6,073 posts)I just told you I've lost over $100,000 dollars in lost wages because I could not gamble on having no health insurance. Where's the empathy?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I won't make that mistake again.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Like asking for empathy for people who do not want a better choice for the poor? My only agenda is pointing out the ignorance of this overhyped story.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ok. And here I though you were complaining about not being able to keep a shitty plan that costs 20 times that and covers nothing.
If you are one of the people in the Republican Gap, I am sorry about your plight, you were supposed to be covered by Medicaid for ZERO dollars, but your Republican state fucked you over. On the other hand if you are a middle class person outside of the gap, one of those who either doesn't bother with insurance or has a crap plan, well you are going to be able to keep your crap plan for another year, or no, you either pay the fucking 95 bucks or enroll. Everyone has to be in, that's how it works.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)who make just over the cutoff for subsidies will have to spend exorbitant amounts - between 1/3 and 1/2 of their after tax income - to get a decent plan. We're not talking about keeping the shitty cheap plans that the President is trying to restore. I agree that those plans should be shitcanned.
The truth is that squarely middle class people, by virtue of their age, are going to face absolutely crushing costs to get a good plan. In my case, it would be $2600 out of an after tax income of $4000. This leaves $1400 for mortgage, utilities, food, life and auto insurance, education, clothing, property and local taxes.
It's just not doable.
I don't know of any reasonable people who would agree that this is a fair amount.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Which has already been around for a few years, and hasn't proven to be cataclysmic? And haven't you already had lots of time to work out any difficulties? And complain?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)cost increases every year. The Legislature eventually stepped in with price controls, but the insurers are still able to push through exorbitant rates based on their actual costs. Our plan has been tweaked to be ACA-compatible, but the problem remains that plans are simply unaffordable for a certain swath of the population, namely middle-class seniors who don't make the income cutoff for subsidies, which is $78K. It's not a lot of people, but for those who get snagged it's catastrophic. They need lots of medical care (everyone does after 55 or 60), but can't afford to fork over up to half their net income for insurance.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And will continue to, with or without ACA?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)It's a very good plan - $0 deductible, $0 copays, and no coverage limits. A comparable plan under Romneycare-cum-ACA is $2600 if you make a penny over $78K.
I don't know what people who are snagged in this crack are doing, but since we don't yet have 100% participation (it's around 97%) it's obvious that some people just are buying the coverage.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)But in some counties the premiums and deductibles on this insurance are so high that people will be very unhappy and yes, it will show up in their votes, or in them staying home.
But don't expect DU to acknowledge this. The problem is that over half of the counties on the exchange have no meaningful competition, so the theory of ACA is not working.
It goes state by state and county by county, and some purple counties are going to turn red if this is not addressed.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Everyone who has to pay more is just offsetting much higher future costs from shitty non-insurance policies.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)qualify for subsidies? I'm not talking about people with second homes or 32 foot boats. I'm talking about solidly middle-class families who make as little as $78K being forced onto plans that range from $1600 to $2600 per month, and still have large deductibles and copays to deal with. I'm talking about people who will have to direct 1/2 of their after-tax income towards health insurance.
But it's not you, right? So fuck them, the filthy rich bastards.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)A lot of people are getting better deals and better insurance. The people who are having policies cancelled are very few. Dems just need to remind everyone that it's the insurance companies doing this, not the ACA.
Plus, the GOP still has nothing to offer as an alternative. Do that many people really want to go back to higher premiums, lousy coverage, and the threat of cancellation? I don't think so.
The Democrats need to start flooding the media with ads from happy people who are getting better coverage and at lower cost. Put some kids on the ads who would have reached their lifetime limits or died due to lack of coverage. The Dems just need to control the message better.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If we had grabbed insurance companie by the throat instead of kissing ass. I blame Rahm Emmanuel who admitted he was against health reform from point one.
However, we do need to never forget that while some people are complaining, a lot of them are people that A) never realized how bad their plan was and B) are dupes for Fox news and other propaganda and C) were the type who did not give a damn if diab5tics and others were told to jump in the lake.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I don't give a Damn about those who have the ability to pay more but greedily refuse. I'm concerned with a minority of people who will seriously be told to pay a fine because they legitimately cannot afford to pay the cost of insurance.
They do exist and they will be heard.
Even if we can't get a fix pushed through congress, we should at least try our best. Anything less is cruel.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Though Bill Clinton's idea was not the right one, and it had all the stink of Bill trying to setup his wife, yet again, keeping the dems focused on center right policies.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)He should apologize publically and privately.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)don't you understand if you deny there are any problems everything smells like roses???
Cannikin
(8,359 posts)They care about how much is being taken from their wallets. This is just the way it is, like it or not. Now we have to deal with the damage that is being done.
You will NEVER convince anyone that it was a good thing that the government came in caused you to lose your cheap insurance for your own good. People don't want the government telling them what's best for them, no matter what party they're from.
It will indeed hurt if this attitude people have had towards those that had lost their plans doesn't change.
"But its a better deal and better insurance", you say. THEY DON'T CARE. Folks are living paycheck to paycheck. The contents of their wallets matter more than anything else.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)stopped voting for Democrats some time ago. Yes, it would be nice to take away their big-screen TVs and magically delete 40+ years of heavy RW media indoctrination but I don't see how that's going to happen. Lost cause in other words, at least in the short term, but already written off, at least in terms of votes, which is what the OP claims to be concerned about.
Warpy
(111,222 posts)Yes, a very few people will pay more. However, they're likely to find the plan so much better than the crap plans offered to individuals that they'll change their minds.
Like the rest of us, they no longer have to face chronic health condition exclusions or lifetime payout caps exposing them to medical bankruptcy.
I'd have preferred single payer. Perhaps if this is unworkable for a lot of people and/or the insurance companies refuse to serve poor areas of the country we'll get it.
However, this is the best we could do with a Congress chockablock full of conservatives in both parties. I think it might be a little wiser for the complainers to wait until the plan actually kick in before they start to tell us how terribly put upon they are. Otherwise, they just look like sour grapes Republicans.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)emerge next year.
Right now the pricing is based on extremely rosy scenarios of young, healthy people dutifully signing up in droves to subsidize the costs of covering seniors. I predict that young people will stay away in droves, preferring to pay the fine. Why on earth would they sign up? They can wait until they get sick to do so.
For what it's worth, my son doesn't know a soul in his fairly extensive circle who plan to buy in. Of course most of them are still on their family plans (the single best feature of ACA), but when they turn 26 - we'll see.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)and no one is allowed to criticize it. So, if people want to ignore the fact there are problems with it, that is their problem. They may very well see the consequences of it in 2014.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Once by extending the business mandate for a year, and again by explicitly extending the junk plans. But also, we are saying there is far more GOOD than just the problems with the 5% in JUNK plans. There are tweaks that have to occur with EVERY big law like this. So just chillax, will you. Get out of panic mode. Give this law a few months for a FULL rollout. They are fixing the website BIGTIME. People are enrolling BIGTIME. They have tweaked the JUNK plan issue. More tweaks will come. GIVE IT TIME. It took TIME for Medicare-D prescription coverage to get up to snuff. THAT TOO was a problematic initial rollout. GIVE IT TIME.
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)to identify the problem
to pretend the cost for 50-65 crowd being 3 times as much as the lowest cost crowd is not a problem is intellectually dishonest
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)TAKE THE LONG VIEW. In time, as more and more people get into the markets, prices will come down across the board as risk is spread among a much larger pool and as companies fight for all this new business. That will make health insurance more affordable for anyone in that small universe who make too much for a subsidy. Look to Massachusetts for what happened there.
Next, Obama has ALREADY explicitly stated that insurance companies can extend these JUNK plans for a year as more and more people enter the marketplace. So he certainly isn't being "flippant." Some companies will do so. That will help some of these people. There may also be a legislative piece that can be tolerable and allow the grandfatherable people who were screwed over by the insurance companies keep their JUNK plans, and with time they will find that as prices come down they'll switch to better plans in the exchanges. Obama will NOT sign a TEAPUKE bill that guts the law and allows NEW JUNK plans that don't meet standards.
So let's take a deep breath here and allow this some time. I know that more and more people are going to be flooding into the new market as the new website becomes more and more repaired. It is already happening rapidly. I am sure we will be in a much better place just within a few months.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)The problem, as I see it, isn't the ACA, its the flaw that some of us warned about four years ago. The plan doesn't have a stopgap for a small minority of people who need good insurance but can't afford the payments or the deductibles.
If something can be done to cover those people better, the ACA will work.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)a good idea as it puts some needed onerous back on the insurance industry where it belongs and it makes the President appear empathetic toward and willing to DO something for those people affected by the cancellations regardless of who is truly at fault. In fact, I would actually support the Landrieu bill because like it or not, perception is perception, there is an argument to be made that the grandfather clause wasn't clear enough, and as the exchanges ramp up, over time many or most those in the JUNK plans will probably move out of them into plans on the exchanges.
That small sliver you talk about may also need some proaction if they just can't find a doable plan on the exchanges. Maybe enhanced subsidies, their own carved-out pool, ? Ideas?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)That said, I think Obama has rightly apologized but now he needs to show himself as a fierce advocate for fixing this problem while laying the blame at the feet of conservatives who blocked a stronger bill with a public option with price caps.
Thinking about it, you're right. There's likely no other choice than to extend the junk plans but if Obama becomes a crusader for making the ACA better it could help change perceptions and possibly even help the Dems in mid-terms.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)agree that the fix for the 2-3% who are finding themselves without subsidies and kind of lost in this will probably have to come through a legislative tweak. I also think more and more needs to be said about these JUNK plans. Insurance reform must actually REFORM insurance. Most of these individual plans are JUNKY plans that don't cover much and have very high deductibles. People don't really "want" them. They just can't afford anything else. My step father had a barebones plan before he qualified for Medicare, and it was JUNK. He had an injury and had to pay four thousand dollars out of pocket. We need to shine a giant spotlight on these JUNK plans.
Don't worry about the midterms. I think much of this will be resolved by that time. In Florida, just since the President extended the JUNK plans explicitly, Florida Blue has reversed 300,000 cancellations. If they think they can make money by doing that, they will.
Give it time. The website is being fixed, and more and more people are going to enroll.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the party will get trounced and that will be the beginning of the end.
Letting people renew their junk policies for a year was a bad idea. Granting the corporations a year delay was a bad idea. Deciding on a 3-year roll out was a bad idea (should have been 8 months). Declaring that "the insurers deserve to make profits" was a bad idea. The president decided that his "signature legislation" should be based on a plan from the far right Heritage Foundation, and that taking care of the insurance ghouls was more important than taking care of Americans. He's now reaping what he sowed, and having the party cling to it is going to be damaging.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)People saying that they are having to pay this or that much more for their insurance under Obamacare, and the stories just don't hold water, when you look at the facts. That's what I'm seeing.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Health Connector site.
It's the truth. Easily verifiable if you give a fuck.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)www.mahealthconnector.org
57 y/o couple, zip code 01519 with one 24 y/o dependent child, income of $87k and then browse the Gold plans. I get a range of $1600 to $2600 for the monthly premium.
To match the benefits of the plan we have through my wife's employee, for which we contribute $900 per month and her employer contributes $600, we'd need to select a top teir Gold plan at $2600 per month. I wonder why an ACA plan is $1100 more expensive than a $0 ded, $0 copay, no limit plan from her employer...?
With an $87k annual family income, after fed, state, property, excise and sales taxes net income is about $48K or $4k per month. Do you think the ACA plans are reasonably priced? I don't. This seems to be a trap for seniors who make just over the $78K cutoff point for subsidies.
I would rather die in the E/R than pay that much for health insurance.
spanone
(135,802 posts)i call bullshit.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)It won't change the facts but you might not have to see the damage.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... funny story, bro.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)subsidies will be paying between 25% and 50% of their after tax income to get a decent plan. These are not rich trust fund CEO types. We're talking less than $80k for a family if four paying up to $2500 monthly for a decent plan that they can actually use here in MA.
If you think it's a big fucking joke then you don't belong here. Why don't you stare into the sun for a bit until you see some ROTFLMAO smileys?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... spare us the pulling numbers out of your butt "be afeared, be very afeared" routine.
And just who the fuck are you to tell ANYONE who doesn't "belong here." You and this OP are here spouting off Teabilly and GOP talking points and you're gonna fucking tell me I shouldn't be here? There's a joke alright, it's you.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)The gauntlet has been thrown down. Either pick it up or go back to figuring out who committed the 9/11 attacks and let the adults discuss things.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You're all bullshit and false bravado. Put up or shut up, lightweight.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)couple with a 24 y/o dependent, and see for yourself what the rates are for a Gold plan. Use $87K for income. I can't do this for you, as you have to see for yourself.
I'm sure you won't do this because you're an asshole.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Say what you like. I'm ignoring you as your responses lack any value.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Says someone posting Teapublican talking points on a Democratic forum.
You're "ignoring my responses," are you?
I'm fucking crushed, I tell ya.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)I'll take my hide now, but not before I call him out as a fucking asshole.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... when it comes to pretenders posting Republican bullshit on this forum.
And DAMN fucking proud of it. If you don't like it, that a personal problem.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)seen for themselves. I can't do it for you because it's an interactive process.
But I don't like being called a liar. Call me a liar and I'll call you a fucking asshole, all day long.
I don't lie. But you're still an asshole. There's no waking up from that.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)The plans are better, but of course are correspondingly pricier.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)that a swath of seniors are getting crushed by the cost of these plans, and are going to remember who did this when election time comes.
I agree with the premise of the OP. This isn't about me, since we have group coverage from my wife's employer. I do worry about it, though, because my wife's firm is continually laying off the higher-paid workers and I incur about $12,000 worth of medical treatment each year.
It's about seniors who are going to get hit hard by what are essentially either a) good but unaffordable or b) shitty and slightly less unaffordable ACA plans.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Also, if your situation changed, and I hope it won't, wouldn't you WANT to be able to buy halfway decent insurance on the individual market? Which it doesn't sound like you'd be able to without ACA?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)But the ACA plans are about $1000 more. I don't know why Massachusetts' ACA compliant plans are so damn expensive, but they are. I think it reflects a) the heavy usage seniors incur and b) subsidizing poorer plan members.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)obamacare will be a huge problem for the democrats next year. i guess if a democrat has a chance in hell they'll have to distance themselves from obama and his healthcare plan.
oh well......
last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)These people are real and will see major cost increases. And they WON'T be getting better coverage -- they will just be paying more since they are now in the same plan as those with pre-existing conditions. I personally know 2 people in this situation.
If I was in this situation, I'd be peeved. No one wants to pay more with no corresponding increase in benefits. Democrats could at least acknowledge the reality that some people will be hurt by ACA.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)pre-existing condition gets priced out?
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Given the Rube-Goldberg nature of the ACA, it is inevitable that there are both winners and losers.
If Democrats want the losers to vote Dem next time, it would be advisable to at least acknowledge the reality that they ARE losing out in this situation, and honestly explain why it was done this way. I don't hear that happening.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)I don't know how old you are or what your income is, but if you hit 55+, and I hope you do, and you happen to have a household income of just over the point where subsidies kick in, you're going to have your first coronary event when you see what a good plan costs.
I've run the following scenario: couple, 57 y/o with a 24 y/o dependent, and income of just over $78K results in a range of $1600 to $2600 for a gold plan. At this income level, people are,going to be forking over up to half their net income for insurance.
There is no way in fuck that I could afford to pay that, so I will just take my fine and drag my bleeding ass to the E/R every day until I croak.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Also, you'd have to continue dealing with it with or without ACA. So why are you complaining like you're getting killed by ACA?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)this country needs jobs.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Half the people poor, and this perception today about one detail will be the big issue then. I don't think so.
MelissainKC
(11 posts)Of the group you are referring to. We make too much for subsidies, insurance cancelled, new policy hundreds of $ more each month. I am so happy and grateful to president Obama and the dems for passing the ACA. I feel that I can finally buy insurance that is worth having and I finally have some rights. If you are in this group with me and are complaining you are ignorant about the individual market prior to the ACA. If you are that ignorant about insurance you probably weren't smart enough to vote for dems anyway.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Can you understand that many don't have that luxury?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)is that plan accounting for?
My personal opinion is that a good family plan, with very low deductibles and copays ($12,000 annual deductible is criminal), should not cost more than 20% or so of the family after-tax income.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)about the effects on the populace. I think the plan is to blame liberals for next year's trouncing because we didn't cheer loudly enough for corporate healthcare, and that's why people don't like it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"most of the fan club is more worried about protecting the president than
about the effects on the populace. I think the plan is to blame liberals for next year's trouncing because we didn't cheer loudly enough for corporate healthcare, and that's why people don't like it.
...most people realize that it's the Republican Party who is blocking the poor from gaining access to health care.
Hurricane Katrina, The Obamacare Rollout, And Allowing Privilege To Shape Our Politics
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024044297
quinnox
(20,600 posts)perfection itself (it has to be, it came from Obama, right?) it is a good sign to see Democrats like Bill Clinton sounding the wake-up call, and saying its time to look at the problems of Obamacare and make fixes, and hopefully the adjustments are just starting, and will be more to come, with big changes hopefully. It has been a clusterfuck so far, it can only get better, right?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Democrats are not going to lose 2014 over the health care law.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)The glitches will be fixed in the next few weeks, and by early next spring we'll have all moved on to other news stories. By spring of 2014, we'll be talking about a whole host of OTHER issues, most of which FAVOR Democrats and hurt Republicans.
ACA is not unraveling, only a few myopic Democrats are.
Want some reassurance? Read the following threads and let's all chill out:
Memo to Democratic Chicken Littles: The Sky Is Not Falling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024042966
Some perspective, folks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024037656
Distressed/grousing over a glitchy Obamacare website? Think ACA is doomed because of a fix for 5%?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024038249
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)I've been a freelancer for more than thirty years--self employed with health coverage bought on the individual market. For years I had a so-called "shitty" policy. The cost was $196 per month for a family of four. My wife and I were in our early forties and our kids were still toddlers. There was a a $2,000 per person deductible and a $4,000 family deductible. After those thresholds were met all of our hospitalization costs were covered as well as all routine visits with small co-pays. Most importantly, in case of serious injury or illness, we didn't have to worry about being bankrupted by medical costs. Thankfully, we never reached our deductibles.
Then NYS overhauled the insurance regs and I was declared under insured.
Under our old plan, in a worst-case scenario if we reached all of our deductibles, we would have been out of pocket for less than $7,000 in any given year.
As it turns out we just paid for our routine visits in cash and our total health-care spending, including premiums, never exceeded $3,500.
Under the new plan mandated by the state, my first year premium went to $690 per month. So if none of us got sick or went to the doctor we were still on the hook for more than $8,000, just in premiums. Add in co-pays and deductibles and we would have topped $9,000. And that's if none of us got seriously ill.
Now my coverage is going from about $13,000 per year to more than $19,000. Granted, I earn enough to pay the increase without a subsidy, but it's still quite a hit. I'd be happy to take back my "shitty" coverage today.
Collectively, we may be better off for the changes. But I have been forced to pay thousands to the insurance industry for coverage I did not want. I doubt that I'm alone.
Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #262)
99Forever This message was self-deleted by its author.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)my memory.
Where or when did I cut and paste this exact same response?
