If You Can Afford Cell Phones, iPads, Video Games, Nike Shoes, Netflix, Then Under The ACA...

[Hissyspit]

6. I can't afford a flat screen TV and I can't afford health insurance.

And a lot of the stuff you listed is necessary for my job. I DO NOT KNOW if I will have affordable health insurance available to me. NO ONE has shown it to me. We'll see.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=889379

"The penalty is far cheaper"

Yeah, for me, it's about $844. The $700 I get back every year that helps me from going bankrupt each year.

Looks like I'll probably be able to get into the exchange (maybe) and pay $4,180 for insurance. Which I can't afford. That's $1,000 a quarter, or about $300 plus every month. So I will have $844 taken from me every year. And have no insurance.

Yay."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=888920&pid=889423

"You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be no more than $4,180. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 30 percent of the total cost."

I didn't even mention the money I would spend on deductibles.

"You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income."

How do I determine the "least expensive plan option in" my area? Is it some near-worthless insurance? $4,180 is about eight percent of my income, so I MIGHT be exempt from the penalty, but I can't count on that.

I'm hoping that this is wrong and I will be able to afford insurance by 2016 as things improve.

Don't get me wrong. There is much in ACA that is excellent and necessary. Despite being rather disgusted at the lousy strategies and compromises that went into creating it, I am glad it passed and the mandate was upheld. And, yes, there is MASSIVE disinformation out there, and I appreciate your post.

But:

1. Declare victory where victory is real: Democrats should declare victory for the popular provisions of the law: no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, coverage for those who can't afford it, the extension of coverage for children to age 26. Wendell Potter offers a great example of how to "sell" this law to the American people.

2. Don't BS the public: But Democrats would be foolish to oversell this law. In response to the ruling, the President said today that the Court has "reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin." That's the wrong approach for a number of reasons, one of which is that people still feel that they can't afford health care - and they're right.

A majority of those who declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses already have health insurance, and the protections in this law aren't enough to prevent that from happening. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs continue to rise for insured Americans. Health insurance costs rose more last year than they had in six years, to more than $15,000 for a family of four, and they've risen by 50 percent since 2003. Democrats should acknowledge these problems, discuss ways this law will help and, most importantly, promise to do more in the next term.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012062628/dont-kid-yourself-its-still-corporate-court-here-are-10-ways-respond

And I am still seriously considering Canada. Not kidding.

I will probably be able to get some kind of health insurance cheaper than that, but not by getting rid of my Netflix subscription. So I probably end up with insurance and no penalty, which is the preferred outcome, but it will cost me and insurance companies will still suck. I have never voted for a Republican and if I have to move from my state, I will just go to another country.

Your argument is offensive rationalization and dependent on people's situations and just pisses people off. Not useful.