Full time student is definitely a category under the Obamacare plans, but they still increase the premium some 85% (at least for me).
Actually, colleges and universities lobbied heavily to have student plans exempt from some of the law's provisions and were successful. So, for example, student plans will be there own separate risk pool, which means that since students tend to be young, the underlying index rate for a student plan should be substantially lower than the general market index rate.
I hear your frustration. What do you propose?
The issue is that every other first world country has a working healthcare system that doesn't bankrupt their population and provides coverage for everyone. I live in one of those countries. Girlfriend was just in the hospital overnight. Total cost for the Emergency room, ambulance, cat scan, doctors, nurses, specialists, and a night in the hospital?
$12.56 for the room
$62.78 for the rest
It's night and day over here. The US needs to change. I prefer single payer but I am willing to see how ACA goes before throwing in the flag. After all what we had was atrociously bad.
We have been brainwashed into thinking that less taxes is better. Taxes are great if they are spent properly. The only people who lower taxes truly benefit in the USA are the rich. Hell my investment portfolio makes out like a bandit since the taxes are so low.
Come election time lets see how ACA is doing.
Full time student is definitely a category under the Obamacare plans, but they still increase the premium some 85% (at least for me).
It's obvious that Republican have the memory of drunk goldfish. Remember Medicare Part D? Remember what was said when it was rolled out? Now try and take part D away.
Medicare Part D was a Republican thing which I find absurdly ironic. The largest expansion of entitlements in the last 3 or 4 decades was passed by a Republican house and signed by a Republican president.
Full time student is definitely a category under the Obamacare plans, but they still increase the premium some 85% (at least for me).
~Gibberish~
You are a liar. Every single person I've spoken to who makes less than 90k/yr has had their premiums go down. You are either lying about being rich or lying about the premiums you were offered for the same coverage. That, or you're just incredibly ignorant and are getting these ideas from the conservative echo chamber that is Fox News/Hannity/Limbaugh.I'm going to vent for a while:
Why is this called the Affordable Care Act if it has nothing to do with affordable care? When Obama pitched this, he said it was for the millions of Americans who don't have insurance. He sited contractors, small business people and the self employed. I'm a contractor and there is no way I can afford insurance under these plans.
After spending 3 weeks trying to get through, I finally did. The rates were roughly $14k/year for me and my son. I'm not rich, I can't afford that. But I'm not poor either. So no matter what I do, I'm still going to have to pay for someone else's health insurance even if I can't afford my own. I'm either going to pay an outrageous amount for heath insurance or I'm going to pay the fine to subsidize someone else's health care.
What about us workers? What about those of us that actually work instead of sitting on our couches collecting checks? Why didn't they just call it welfare and be honest?
This just sucks. I'm going to get ass raped by this law no matter what I do.
The law is the manifestation of a power grab for government control of one sixth of the economy. The result being redistribution of wealth on an enormous scale. Who has the money? The left would like you to think it's the 1%. That's a joke. The middle class has the money. They're the ones that are going to feel the pain and feel it hard.I'm going to vent for a while:
Why is this called the Affordable Care Act if it has nothing to do with affordable care? When Obama pitched this, he said it was for the millions of Americans who don't have insurance. He sited contractors, small business people and the self employed. I'm a contractor and there is no way I can afford insurance under these plans.
After spending 3 weeks trying to get through, I finally did. The rates were roughly $14k/year for me and my son. I'm not rich, I can't afford that. But I'm not poor either. So no matter what I do, I'm still going to have to pay for someone else's health insurance even if I can't afford my own. I'm either going to pay an outrageous amount for heath insurance or I'm going to pay the fine to subsidize someone else's health care.
What about us workers? What about those of us that actually work instead of sitting on our couches collecting checks? Why didn't they just call it welfare and be honest?
This just sucks. I'm going to get ass raped by this law no matter what I do.
You are a liar. Every single person I've spoken to who makes less than 90k/yr has had their premiums go down. You are either lying about being rich or lying about the premiums you were offered for the same coverage. That, or you're just incredibly ignorant and are getting these ideas from the conservative echo chamber that is Fox News/Hannity/Limbaugh.
It really amazes me that a bunch of people sit around all day listening to their own views being spit back at them and somehow thats entertaining.
You are a liar. Every single person I've spoken to who makes less than 90k/yr has had their premiums go down. You are either lying about being rich or lying about the premiums you were offered for the same coverage. That, or you're just incredibly ignorant and are getting these ideas from the conservative echo chamber that is Fox News/Hannity/Limbaugh.
It really amazes me that a bunch of people sit around all day listening to their own views being spit back at them and somehow thats entertaining.
Is the bolded the only tools you liberals have your toolbox, when you don't agree with something and want to call someone a liar? My employer provided a good plan for me at $103 per month, 1000 annual deductible, $5 per prescription, $25 office visit, 80% coverage on major medical.
Here is my new ACA rate, should I choose to participate:
Results
Because your income is more than 400% of the poverty level, you would not qualify for subsidized exchange coverage. The information below is about unsubsidized exchange coverage.
Household income in 2014:
653% of poverty level
Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:
None
(before accounting for a tobacco surcharge, if applicable)
Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):
$5,665 per year
In most states, insurers can charge a tobacco surcharge of up to 50% of your total premium before the tax credit. The tax credit cannot be applied to the tobacco surcharge.
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:
$0 per year
(which covers 0% of the overall premium)
Amount you pay for the premium:
$5,665 per year
(which equals 7.55% of your household income and covers 100% of the overall premium)
Other Levels of Coverage
The premium amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You could purchase other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive).
For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $4,278 per year (which is 5.7% of your household income). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan.
Out of Pocket Costs
Your out-of-pocket maximum for a Silver plan (not including the premium) can be no more than $6,350. Whether you reach this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services you use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year.
A Silver plan has an actuarial value of 70%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 70% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. If you choose to enroll in a Bronze plan, the actuarial value will be 60%, meaning your out-of-pocket costs when you use services will likely be higher. Regardless of which level of coverage you choose, deductibles and copayments will vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs will depend on your health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
Using that link it says $12,700 for out of pocket. Woohoooo a grand less than the actual website.
Who has the money? The left would like you to think it's the 1%. That's a joke. The middle class has the money. They're the ones that are going to feel the pain and feel it hard.
You are a liar. Every single person I've spoken to who makes less than 90k/yr has had their premiums go down. You are either lying about being rich or lying about the premiums you were offered for the same coverage. That, or you're just incredibly ignorant and are getting these ideas from the conservative echo chamber that is Fox News/Hannity/Limbaugh.
It really amazes me that a bunch of people sit around all day listening to their own views being spit back at them and somehow thats entertaining.
Rates are rising for a lot of people, like Foster, in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years. "With this new system coming in, I'm not even going to have money to pay my utility bills. Affordable care, what is affordable having to go from average $26 a month co-pays, they're going to be $400" Foster says.
What sources are you using to determine that the middle class "has the money?" Every source I've come up with says that wealth is concentrated in the high upper tiers, with the top 5% having over 50% of the wealth. Obviously any increase in rates is going to hurt the middle class more than the wealthy class (as the wealthy have more assets and can afford it), but that doesn't change the fact that your central premise (specifically "the middle class has the money") doesn't seem grounded in reality.
Just pointing out, he seems to have the same viewpoint you have, ie he said 'The Left would like you to think..' that the middle class has the money.
Obamacare's definition of who gets no subsidy (400% of poverty):
An individual making $45,000 per year, ie ~$22/hr assuming a 40 hr week, is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
For a couple, household income of ~$61,000 is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
For 2 adults and a child, $78,000 per year is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
For 2 adults and 2 children, $94,000 per year is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
I may make another thread on this, yet another unintended consequence to obamacare.
Two married adults who make $31,000 per year in the same household total $62,000 per year. They get no subsidy.
Separately, they get a subsidy.
Unless both you and your spouse BOTH make more than $45000 / yr INDIVIDUALLY, it appears that there is a significant financial advantage in Obamacare to getting a divorce.
I'm open to takers to disprove this, it's something I've been thinking about but just now had a chance to run the numbers.
Just pointing out, he seems to have the same viewpoint you have, ie he said 'The Left would like you to think..' that the middle class has the money.
Obamacare's definition of who gets no subsidy (400% of poverty):
An individual making $45,000 per year, ie ~$22/hr assuming a 40 hr week, is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
For a couple, household income of ~$61,000 is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
For 2 adults and a child, $78,000 per year is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
For 2 adults and 2 children, $94,000 per year is 'wealthy' enough to fund other people's healthcare.
I may make another thread on this, yet another unintended consequence to obamacare.
Two married adults who make $31,000 per year in the same household total $62,000 per year. They get no subsidy.
Separately, they get a subsidy.
Unless both you and your spouse BOTH make more than $45000 / yr INDIVIDUALLY, it appears that there is a significant financial advantage in Obamacare to getting a divorce.
I'm open to takers to disprove this, it's something I've been thinking about but just now had a chance to run the numbers.
Obamacare is a disaster for the middle class. After a certain level health insurance cost is a fairly flat cost. Which means as your richer it takes a smaller chunk of your income.
People at the 400% poverty income level and slightly above are going to get hammered. The economy will suffer.
But lib's will say that those people making 400% are rich, and need to pay for the vast government un-educated masses.
You're equating wealth with money. Different things entirely. That's the first misperception that is leading you astray.What sources are you using to determine that the middle class "has the money?" Every source I've come up with says that wealth is concentrated in the high upper tiers, with the top 5% having over 50% of the wealth. Obviously any increase in rates is going to hurt the middle class more than the wealthy class (as the wealthy have more assets and can afford it), but that doesn't change the fact that your central premise (specifically "the middle class has the money") doesn't seem grounded in reality.
Remember that this is regards to Obamacare. Obamacare forced on rich folks yields few dollars because there are few of them. Obamacare forced on the middle class folks yields mega dollars because there are a whole lot of them.
sactoking would know the answers to these questions.Something else I have seen no answer to on the penalty part.
The law apparently says the penalty 'tax' is 1% of your income, PER PERSON, in the household. So, if you are a couple with a household income (married filing jointly) of $70,000, 1% is $700.
Does this mean that since there are two of you, the tax is $1400?
If yes, then once again, separately your penalty 'tax' would be $700 total while if you stay married and in the same house your penalty 'tax' is $1400.
Is this correct? Again, I haven't seen anyone address what seems to be a dangerous flaw that disparages marriage and encourages single parenthood etc etc.