ACA and Canceled Policies for New York Professionals

LOL, I pay attention to what people tell me.... At my age I do have a number of friends and family from which to draw experiences, you have a problem with that? My entire family has health insurance, my daughter and son-in-law through the police department, so ACA doesn't affect them. Or are you just looking for a way to marginalize my post?

Some of the conservatives here scour the Internet looking for negative stories perhaps I should follow their lead and spam the board with positive stories, there are plenty of them out there but I don't expect the conservatives to post any of them, so why would you expect me to post negative stories? Seriously, you all are doing a bang up job of doing that.

I don't understand your tax question, what taxes are you referring to?

No you don't have to scour the internet for negative ACA stories, they are obvious and abundant. Get serious. I wasn't attacking you, just asking questions. Are these association plans pre-tax like employer group plans? I don't really know how they work. And why can the government arbitrarily disqualify them? Seems to me these folks could just voluntarily move to the exchanges anyway.

I read back through the article, and realized that they are talking about a policy for one person, I wonder if a family policy would have a difference in savings or higher costs. NYC has had historically high health insurance costs, so it's not surprising that the savings projected for individual policies in NY were projected to be 40% lower under the ACA....if like my son you had a group policy, and now you don't, the idea of it being about a wash for them seems accurate.

Under the plan, New York City residents who buy their own insurance and now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage can sign up starting in October for plans that run as low as $308 a month. That cost is calculated before applying federal subsidies, which can lower the cost even more for those making up to 400 percent of the poverty line—an annual income of $23,000 for individuals and up to $92,000 for a family

http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-a ... -care-act/

I have seen similar claims in other publications, NY seems to be one of the winners in the ACA, while states with lower income populations are the losers. I do wish we could have national insurance, not state specific.

LOL wrote: No you don't have to scour the internet for negative ACA stories, they are obvious and abundant. Get serious. I wasn't attacking you, just asking questions. Are these association plans pre-tax like employer group plans? I don't really know how they work. And why can the government arbitrarily disqualify them? Seems to me these folks could just voluntarily move to the exchanges anyway.

As I understand my son's group, they are an association of graphic designers/artists/photographers that join together both for networking and to supply their members with group health insurance, life insurance, and I don't know what else. The association does not take money automatically from you, I doubt there is any tax benefit, they just contract with one insurance carrier to cover their members and the members then sign up on their own at at lower rate than the general public. Downside to that has been that every so often the contract gets re-negotiated and your insurance carrier may change, your coverage definitely changes, and you really don't have a lot of choices. He is pleased to at least be able to shop more options and make his own choices, even if he isn't saving any money.....that he couldn't do much of through the association.

I agree, however, that it seems silly to eliminate insurance through associations....they could still do ACA.

archer wrote: I read back through the article, and realized that they are talking about a policy for one person, I wonder if a family policy would have a difference in savings or higher costs. NYC has had historically high health insurance costs, so it's not surprising that the savings projected for individual policies in NY were projected to be 40% lower under the ACA....if like my son you had a group policy, and now you don't, the idea of it being about a wash for them seems accurate.

Under the plan, New York City residents who buy their own insurance and now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage can sign up starting in October for plans that run as low as $308 a month. That cost is calculated before applying federal subsidies, which can lower the cost even more for those making up to 400 percent of the poverty line—an annual income of $23,000 for individuals and up to $92,000 for a family

http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-a ... -care-act/

I have seen similar claims in other publications, NY seems to be one of the winners in the ACA, while states with lower income populations are the losers. I do wish we could have national insurance, not state specific.

Looking at your quote, it seems very short on specifics. "can sign up starting in October for plans that run as low as $308 a month." Do these new cheaper plans have out of pocket expenses that are through the roof - what we used to call catastrophic plans? I can only base my opinions on what I see on the Colorado exchange. To sign me and my family up for comparable insurance would bankrupt me. I am thinking of going solo in my own business and this stupid f###ing law is pretty much the only thing preventing me from doing so. I really get tired of people blaming it on us or them instead of just trying to fix it or repeal the piece of crap.

I wasn't trying to post specifics......

I'm curious what kind of policy you are looking at that would bankrupt you more than what you have now. The only thing I can compare to is our insurance before DH went on medicare, for the two of us we paid $1800/month, ages 64 and 59.....Is the ACA policy for two adults that high? I really have no desire to wander around the Colorado site.

Funny, it was the a lack of a law like this that kept me from starting my own business till I was 10 years past a diagnosis that prohibited me from getting individual insurance......once I could fill out the insurance form that only asked for a 10 year health history, I started the business.

archer wrote:

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: Cheering for the ship to go down rather than working to repair the ship? Yeah, that sounds like what the GOP has been pushing for the last 5 years.

NO, that's not my point AT ALL. My point is for the population to learn a lesson about how government can't fix all our problems. If the greater good of more liberty is an eventual result, I'll gladly feel some short term pain so we can get back to how this country was intended to be run. You and I differ greatly on how we see government's roll in our lives, it doesn't make me mean or uncaring.

You are not the GOP...... But your post read to me like an echo of the last 5 years of GOP tactics.....can you honestly say they haven't been working actively to sabotage anything Obama does? From nominations, to budget, to deficit reduction, to health care reform, and immigration.... Its been no, no, no. I don't think that is an unfair assessment, they themselves pledged to make him a one term president, an understandable goal but a disastrous tactic for the country.

Of course the GOP wants too make every elected Democrat a one term proposition... can you honestly say that's NOT what the Dems do? Mitch McConnell just happened to say it out loud, but that doesn't mean the Dems think differently. Look at it this way, the Dems used deception to get Obama reelected and to get the ACA passed... provable lies to the people. Is that sort of tactic worse than the GOP trying to stop progressive policies that their constituents strongly disagree with? Both parties are guilty of trying to take each other out, even if they don't all say it out loud.

Rick wrote: Of course the GOP wants too make ever elected Democrat a one term proposition... canyou honestly say that's NOT what the Dems do? Mitch McConnell just happened to say it out loud, but that doesn't mean the Dems think differently. Look at it this way, the Dems used deception to get Obama reelected and to get the ACA passed... provable lies to the people. Is that sort of tactic worse than the GOP trying to stop progressive policies that their constituents strongly disagree with? Both parties are guilty of trying to take each other out, even if they don't all say it out loud.

That's why I said it was an understandable goal, but for either party, if you take an all or nothing stance, you usually get nothing. Boehner at least has realized that fact.....but the Tea Party? not so much.

If these folks are really creative they will get around the issues of the ACA.

The irony is that these folks that asked for mandates are considered creative. Mandates are by definition the opposite of creative. No creativity allowed.