Just Lost My Insurance

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, I'm just going to pay the $95.00 fine to support the rest of you guys on the exchanges, because that's what I can afford. My insurance guy has assured me that nobody in Texas will know the exchange rates until 10/1 because the rates have not been made public yet. But even if the rates that Kythas quotes are accurate, I still can't afford them. So the net effect of this legislation for people like Kythas is that they will pay a little bit more, but they will still (if Obama is to be believed) get adequate coverage for the price; while the net effect for people like me is that we get to support the system through our fines, without being able to afford the system's "benefits."

[mojo84]

Well, I'm just going to pay the $95.00 fine to support the rest of you guys on the exchanges, because that's what I can afford. My insurance guy has assured me that nobody in Texas will know the exchange rates until 10/1 because the rates have not been made public yet. But even if the rates that Kythas quotes are accurate, I still can't afford them. So the net effect of this legislation for people like Kythas is that they will pay a little bit more, but they will still (if Obama is to be believed) get adequate coverage for the price; while the net effect for people like me is that we get to support the system through our fines, without being able to afford the system's "benefits."

Love this term “shared responsibility payment." Wish Atlas would shrug. Who is John Galt?

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/healt ... l-mandate-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

...while the net effect for people like me is that we get to support the system through our fines, without being able to afford the system's "benefits."

The system is setup to help those who can't afford it make the premiums. It punishes (fines) those that "can" afford the premiums, but "choose" not to. Notice the quotes, because if the premiums aren't public, no way to tell who can / can't afford them.

I assume you're indicating that there was a big miscalculation...

I can't look back. Prior to Obamacare wasn't sustainable either. I'm just looking for a way forward. Obamacare happens to tax the healthy to pay for the sick. That's socialist. It's also ethical and perhaps not very American.

[anygunanywhere]

That's socialist. It's also ethical and perhaps not very American.

If something is socialist it cannot be ethical at the same time.

Anygunanywhere

[MeMelYup]

CB1000 how is taxing the healthy to pay for the sick ethical?

[talltex]

I was told we're dropping ours too. Oh well, I'll go on my wife's.

That's great as long as you have that option, but if you work in the private sector, and are not part of a "large group" plan (over 50 employees), you are at the mercy of the insurance carrier as to whether or not they will accept you...and if you have any hint of a pre-existing condition you can forget about it. About 15 years ago I changed my company's health insurance to the one I'm still with because they did NOT rate anyone according to pre-existing, and I had two long time employees that had previously suffered heart attacks. This was a plan from a large regional hospital group which offered the same price to everyone, regardless of age or health condition, and their family coverage was outstanding...one premium for family coverage, whether there was one child or six...same price...and their coverage and service were excellent. They offered the same plan to small employers as they did to large groups, which meant they could not turn any employee down that wanted coverage. About 9 years ago, they changed and started rating each small group individually based on the claim rate percentages and my small group premiums more than doubled over the next 5 years. I sold my company in 2005 and retained my small group coverage which now only included my spouse and myself. In 2006, I had 3 heart stents put in, had a gallbladder taken out, and had an adrenal gland removed...the gallbladder/adrenal gland surgery took place 5 weeks after the stents went in, so they kept me in the cardiac ICU for a week in case they triggered a heart attack. My premiums have gone up the maximum allowable each year since (15%) and I am now uninsurable anywhere else except a high risk pool. I have raised my deductibles from 0 to 1000, to 2500, to 4000, to 5000, to 7500 just to be able to maintain coverage. Two years ago I tried to move my wife to their individual plan, which would have saved almost $300 per month over the inflated group rate we were paying for our 2 person "group". They had already told me that I could maintain a single person group for myself. My wife filled out the individual application and a month later it was rejected by the same company that has had her insured for 15 years...their reason was "POTENTIAL" back problems resulting from a train wreck she was involved in in 1984 where she was treated for deep bruising, abrasions and the "possibility of a ruptured disc" was noted on the doctors report...even though she has NEVER been treated for any back problems in the ensuing 29 years. So, in effect, we are held hostage to them , if we wish to maintain private coverage. The fact that they can use the mere "possibility" of something as a justification, also concerns me when we start talking about restricting someone's ability to own a firearm on the basis of something that might be noted in a medical report somewhere. There now...thank you for listening to my rant for the week!

[Vol Texan]

...while the net effect for people like me is that we get to support the system through our fines, without being able to afford the system's "benefits."

The system is setup to help those who live on government subsidies at the expense of all of the rest of us.. It punishes (fines) those that "can" afford the premiums, but "choose" not to. Notice the quotes, because if the premiums aren't public, no way to tell who can / can't afford them.

I assume you're indicating that there was a big miscalculation...

I can't look back. Prior to Obamacare wasn't sustainable either. I'm just looking for a way forward. Obamacare happens to tax the "producers" to pay for the "parasites" and "moochers" (to use Ayn Rand's words). That's socialist. It's also ethical and perhaps not very American.

There, I fixed it for you.. There is nothing but evil in this law. I don't care even if it did reduce our costs - it is a BAD THING that the government is taking over. Remember, a government that is strong enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take it away.

[cb1000rider]

CB1000 how is taxing the healthy to pay for the sick ethical?

Consider the alternative: We let the sick die because they can't afford to pay. Which way is more ethical?

For the sake of argument, let's say that we keep things the way that they are today as most people seem to like that idea. You have an accident and you can't afford a single life saving surgery, what happens? In most cases it gets paid for. Who pays for it? You and I do. We pay for it through taxes and we pay for it through ridiculous "non-negotiated" rates on health care expenses.

Obamacare changes that somewhat. It makes us pay up front to subside people who are sick and the people that can't afford it. On the basis of who is paying, nothing changes... We're just slightly more aware of what is going on.

[cb1000rider]

I don't care even if it did reduce our costs - it is a BAD THING that the government is taking over. Remember, a government that is strong enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take it away.

That is a point of view that I can understand.

The alternative is "do nothing". The course of doing nothing leaves the vast majority of Americans on a track that would mean they can't afford to be old or sick, unless they're substantially wealthy. There would be mass migration to Canada... :-)

[Texheim]

I was told we're dropping ours too. Oh well, I'll go on my wife's.

That's great as long as you have that option, but if you work in the private sector, and are not part of a "large group" plan (over 50 employees), you are at the mercy of the insurance carrier as to whether or not they will accept you...and if you have any hint of a pre-existing condition you can forget about it. About 15 years ago I changed my company's health insurance to the one I'm still with because they did NOT rate anyone according to pre-existing, and I had two long time employees that had previously suffered heart attacks. This was a plan from a large regional hospital group which offered the same price to everyone, regardless of age or health condition, and their family coverage was outstanding...one premium for family coverage, whether there was one child or six...same price...and their coverage and service were excellent. They offered the same plan to small employers as they did to large groups, which meant they could not turn any employee down that wanted coverage. About 9 years ago, they changed and started rating each small group individually based on the claim rate percentages and my small group premiums more than doubled over the next 5 years. I sold my company in 2005 and retained my small group coverage which now only included my spouse and myself. In 2006, I had 3 heart stents put in, had a gallbladder taken out, and had an adrenal gland removed...the gallbladder/adrenal gland surgery took place 5 weeks after the stents went in, so they kept me in the cardiac ICU for a week in case they triggered a heart attack. My premiums have gone up the maximum allowable each year since (15%) and I am now uninsurable anywhere else except a high risk pool. I have raised my deductibles from 0 to 1000, to 2500, to 4000, to 5000, to 7500 just to be able to maintain coverage. Two years ago I tried to move my wife to their individual plan, which would have saved almost $300 per month over the inflated group rate we were paying for our 2 person "group". They had already told me that I could maintain a single person group for myself. My wife filled out the individual application and a month later it was rejected by the same company that has had her insured for 15 years...their reason was "POTENTIAL" back problems resulting from a train wreck she was involved in in 1984 where she was treated for deep bruising, abrasions and the "possibility of a ruptured disc" was noted on the doctors report...even though she has NEVER been treated for any back problems in the ensuing 29 years. So, in effect, we are held hostage to them , if we wish to maintain private coverage. The fact that they can use the mere "possibility" of something as a justification, also concerns me when we start talking about restricting someone's ability to own a firearm on the basis of something that might be noted in a medical report somewhere. There now...thank you for listening to my rant for the week!

We are 36 FTE's, trust me I do the formula every month. We switch last year from First(worse)Care to Humana and there wasn't any testing or visits required and we're a small group, only 5 take the coverage. Only five take the coverage because it's crazy: spouse and wife $500 a month. Hang on to y'alls re-ends and hide and watch for what it looks like after ACA full roll out...

[rotor]

I don't care even if it did reduce our costs - it is a BAD THING that the government is taking over. Remember, a government that is strong enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take it away.

That is a point of view that I can understand.

The alternative is "do nothing". The course of doing nothing leaves the vast majority of Americans on a track that would mean they can't afford to be old or sick, unless they're substantially wealthy. There would be mass migration to Canada... :-)

Actually, the migration has been from Canada to the US. When it takes a year to get a CT scan in Canada (unless it's for your pet because there is no wait for that), the Canadians have been coming to the US. What happens after the insanity of Obamacare is another question. If it gets so bad that Canada is better we are in deep you know what. I see nothing wrong with paying for my care and having a high deductible insurance policy for "Disasters". I pay for my dental care that way and my three dogs get excellent care from their vet docs at a reasonable price and I pay for that without government intervention. Nothing that the government does is done well or efficiently. And if Obamacare is so great why do the politicians and their staff get exempted?

[The Annoyed Man]

And if Obamacare is so great why do the politicians and their staff get exempted?

GIVE THAT MAN A KEWPIE DOLL!!! Exactly! If it is so darn great, why are THEY on it? I'm unwilling to rest easy, knowing that my elected stooges vote themselves something different than they force on me, on penalty of fines. Forum rules forbid me to use the language best describing their genetic heritage.

[The Walrus]

Laws are for the little people. http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/ ... for_t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pawpaw]

Here is yet another take on the matter. I'm not sure whether I agree, but he makes a compelling argument...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... ns_opinion

[cb1000rider]

Actually, the migration has been from Canada to the US. When it takes a year to get a CT scan in Canada (unless it's for your pet because there is no wait for that), the Canadians have been coming to the US. What happens after the insanity of Obamacare is another question. If it gets so bad that Canada is better we are in deep you know what. I see nothing wrong with paying for my care and having a high deductible insurance policy for "Disasters". I pay for my dental care that way and my three dogs get excellent care from their vet docs at a reasonable price and I pay for that without government intervention. Nothing that the government does is done well or efficiently. And if Obamacare is so great why do the politicians and their staff get exempted?

I'll give you that point.. Socialism seems to destroy care quality and care availability. Clearly there is no perfect answer, but I think it's reasonable to expect one where *most* people can afford care and the quality of care is reasonable. That may mean care quality comes down in the US to impact cost...

Politicans and staff are "exempt" via the same means that I'm exempt. We have an employer. There is no one "Obamacare" policy as you know, so it's not as simple as having them eat their own dog food..