ObamaCares works!

I am curious, if the ACA methodology works moving forward, for those that support it strongly now, would you consider using the same methodology on other critical resources that are not being fully distributed to all that need them, such as.

Education
Food
Housing

In many of the same senses, these items are all getting out of control price wise and all have public solutions where "everyone has to pay for the needs of a few that don't property prepare for lack of the resource". Essentially all three of the above are plagued by the same problem that health care was plagued by before the ACA solved it. There are massive groups that lack the above and get it from the govt as the needy, just like health care.

Would you consider a govt. mandate for folks to buy food, education and housing insurance or financing programs rather than buy the products themselves or have the govt provide it via taxes if such an ACA type system works so well for allocation of resources? If you would not, why not, what makes any of these so fundamentally different? You do know that either way, by allowing this stuff to push forward, you have opened the door to this.

I really think folks have just as much to be concerned about if this law works as if it does not.

Like it or not we are on the other side of the fence where companies and industries can lobby for forced purchases. Like healthcare, the most obvious first lobbies will support other essential goods like the ones I noted here. But many of us will live more than 5-10 more years, so this could and will likely evolve to many frivolous sectors being funded this way, they can all claim that saving them will save jobs....

on that note wrote: I really think folks have just as much to be concerned about if this law works as if it does not.

....

Ok chicken little...What aren't you doom and gloomers concerned about? Look past our borders my friend- free government healthcare is the rule rather than the exception and nobody thinks those people have been enslaved by the system..

#youreajoke

VL,
I know you aren't this stupid, ACA is not free goverment healthcare. Taxpayer paid healthcare would have made sense, instead it is still the current system with 20,000 pages of new stupid rules and additions to make private healthcare insurance a lot more expensive. Like eliminating limits on maximum benefits.
Your car insurance has limits on payouts, why shouldn't your healthcare insurance?

ACA is based on more-people-in-the-system; and market-competition... (Both of which were the ideas of the Heritage Foundation, and RMoney's Massachusetts solution...before Obama said he liked it...Which, of course, was all that was needed to make the teabaggers hate it.)

Fascinating that the GOTP is so terrified of competition, and the only "replacement" they offer is to take away affordable insurance for roughly 30-million people. Let us know how that works out for you.

Tick-tock, tick-tock.... October 1st will be here before you know it...And the whole plan is in effect by January 1st..

On page 4 of the Kaiser article they quote a $250/mo premium for a 40 yr old in Denver. They don't mention the deductible, but the max out of pocket expense appears to be a very high $6350. And has been discussed before, there is a problem with the law in that $6350 could in some cases apply to medical care and prescriptions separately, raising the out of pocket expense to as much as $12,700 in 2014. The $250/mo is for a policy with a 30% copay.

I checked what you can currently get for around $250 at Rocky Mountain Health. For a 40 yr old male in Park county I found a $2500 HSA with drug coverage for $251/mo. The maximum out of pocket expense is $2500 unlike the Obamacare's $6350/$12700. The plan pays 100% of expenses above $2500 while the Obamacare plan just pays 70%.

In addition, you can put up to $3250 tax free into your HSA account which would save you hundreds in taxes ($812 savings if in the 25% tax bracket). If it were me, it would be a no-brainer to take the $2500 HSA which is offered now (though you need to be in decent health to qualify, unlike Obamacare).

I'm still not clear if Obamacare will offer HSA accounts. If they do, I'm worried it would be a $6350 HSA which is too high an out of pocket expense, IMO. Hopefully there will be plans available with lower out of pocket expense, but I'm not sure.

If you are low income the Obamacare premiums do get subsidized and are even less. But if you are single and make over about $45K, you have to pay the full amount and a $6350/$12,700 out of pocket expense is just not very good coverage, IMO.

And if you do have a good plan, it will be taxed to support the people who can't pay.
Robin Hood? Except the people who take care of themselves will get to pay for those who don't.

It is like Breakfast Of Champions, those who can run, will be issued ball and chain to make them equal with the lame.

pineinthegrass wrote: On page 4 of the Kaiser article they quote a $250/mo premium for a 40 yr old in Denver. They don't mention the deductible, but the max out of pocket expense appears to be a very high $6350. And has been discussed before, there is a problem with the law in that $6350 could in some cases apply to medical care and prescriptions separately, raising the out of pocket expense to as much as $12,700 in 2014. The $250/mo is for a policy with a 30% copay.

I checked what you can currently get for around $250 at Rocky Mountain Health. For a 40 yr old male in Park county I found a $2500 HSA with drug coverage for $251/mo. The maximum out of pocket expense is $2500 unlike the Obamacare's $6350/$12700. The plan pays 100% of expenses above $2500 while the Obamacare plan just pays 70%.

In addition, you can put up to $3250 tax free into your HSA account which would save you hundreds in taxes ($812 savings if in the 25% tax bracket). If it were me, it would be a no-brainer to take the $2500 HSA which is offered now (though you need to be in decent health to qualify, unlike Obamacare).

I'm still not clear if Obamacare will offer HSA accounts. If they do, I'm worried it would be a $6350 HSA which is too high an out of pocket expense, IMO. Hopefully there will be plans available with lower out of pocket expense, but I'm not sure.

If you are low income the Obamacare premiums do get subsidized and are even less. But if you are single and make over about $45K, you have to pay the full amount and a $6350/$12,700 out of pocket expense is just not very good coverage, IMO.

What is your reference for your claim that the out of pocket would be $12,700. You mention that "in some cases", then go on to generalize that applies in the example. Which is it, in "some cases" or in all cases? You also claim that you do not know what the deductible is, then go onto claim that it would be $12,700 with no basis except for your speculation. Also, you state that you do not know whether or not there will be HSA accounts under Obamacare, then go on to claim that the HSA would be $6350 for your example. It appears that your example is fictional and not based on the facts. Why not use facts unless you are simply fabricating examples for purposes of scare tactics?

Currently you have to pay the full amount regardless of your income level.

FredHayek wrote: And if you do have a good plan, it will be taxed to support the people who can't pay.

Hmmm... Not unless they are over $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family. (Let me know if you find a public-sector teacher's union whose plan exceeds those amounts.) ... Forgot that, Fred, in your right-wing biased anti-Obamacare taking-points?...

FredHayek wrote: And if you do have a good plan, it will be taxed to support the people who can't pay.
Robin Hood? Except the people who take care of themselves will get to pay for those who don't.

Fred, you know that is not true. But we have come to expect that from you. The only plans that will be taxed are the high premium plans and self-funded plans. Even those plans will be subject to excise taxes beginning in 2018 only on the portion of the premium that is over $10,200 per individual or $27500 family annually. These thresholds will be adjusted by age, gender and inflation. Also for workers in high risk categories. Then the tax is only on the portion above the threshold, not the entire amount. So if you feel that you need a plan where the premiums are $1000 per month instead of a plan where the premiums are $250, you would pay a tax of $60. If you can afford a Cadillac plan with premiums of that sort, then you can afford the modest tax on it. Also, the insured does not pay the excise tax, the insurer does.

But that does not fit your "outrage" does it?

So you just admitted it was true. You have a cadillac plan and you will be taxed in 2018.
And the intent here which you appear to be unwilling to admit is to help fund ACA and also to make co-pays higher to discourage over-use of good medical plans and lower healthcare costs.

The teacher that used to have no co-pay to go to the GP to get a cold checked out will now have to pay $45. Think she will be less inclined to get early problems taken care of? How about if she know has to pay $200 to go to a specialist?

Or if you went from 90/10 co-pay plan to a 60/40 plan, do you think you would be less willing to have a new artificial knee installed? Probably not, lower health costs.

You guys are using anecdotal, I am using what happens in real life. For example, my wife has MS and works for the state. Her out of pocket cost to have an MRI went from $200 to $1000 last year. Think she will have an MRI next year when her specialist asks her to?

End result? Health care is going to be leaner, inferior, and more costly. More of the healthy are going to be covering the worst off.

Another example I read about just this week, cancer is being re-defined. Certain types will no longer be called cancer.
Pre-screenings? They will not be required as often. Sure it might save costs, but what about the 2% that develop something? Found too late?