When Affordable Care isn't Affordable

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.

"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."

"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."



If you can't afford the premiums, then what good is the insurance?

Do we accept that these new policies are affordable simply because they are a result of the Affordable Care Act? If you are Moon I'd say the answer is yes, but for the rest of us the answer is no.

NBC isn't exacly Fox News lol.

Originally posted by Eladar
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

[b]George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a lett ...[text shortened]... ay the answer is yes, but for the rest of us the answer is no.

NBC isn't exacly Fox News lol.

And here it is. Here is the smoking gun of the idiocy of Obama.

I read another article about this subject. A young woman's premiums went from something like $55"4 to $518 per month. Her response? ""I was all for Obamacare until I found out I had to pay for it."

Idiots.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
And here it is. Here is the smoking gun of the idiocy of Obama.

I read another article about this subject. A young woman's premiums went from something like $55"4 to $518 per month. Her response? ""I was all for Obamacare until I found out I had to pay for it."

Idiots.

I can't afford it either. :'(:'(:'(

Originally posted by caissad4
I can't afford it either. :'(:'(:'(

I wish you could.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I wish you could.

Anyone using common sense would have known, you don't get something for nothing, and you don't cover 40 million uninsured, as well as uninsurable risks like preexisting conditions and have cost go down. That was pie in the sky to begin with.

Oh well, better adopt the single payer boys.

It was the plan all along

Originally posted by whodey
Oh well, better adopt the single payer boys.

It was the plan all along

You betcha. Thing is it is still the same con game. Give you something for nothing. Care will always be rationed and some will be denied. It is only a question of who decides.

The dirty little secret here is that the progressive ideology can never work without huge deficits. Their ideology demands they live beyond their means. It is a very materialistic ideology, which is why it is often associated with Marxism.

Any fake concern for government spending comes from progressives when they wish to take more of your wealth and freedoms. They act is though they need your dimes and nickels to help pay for their trillions in deficit spending in order to make ends meet.

Originally posted by normbenign
Anyone using common sense would have known, you don't get something for nothing, and you don't cover 40 million uninsured, as well as uninsurable risks like preexisting conditions and have cost go down. That was pie in the sky to begin with.

Sure, why use statistics when you can rely on common sense? Don't let the fact that the rest of the developed world manages to provide health care for entire populations more cheaply and with better outcomes in terms of overall life expectancy interfere with your "common sense" assumptions!

Originally posted by whodey
The dirty little secret here is that the progressive ideology can never work without huge deficits.

It does so in Northern Europe; therefore, it can do so elsewhere.

I seldom put much faith in anecdotal stories, for drawing general conclusions—even if true, the entirely of circumstances is not always reported, and often they represent outliers (which does not discount the problem for the individual). So nobody should draw broad conclusions from mine either. With that said—

The premium rates for generally comparable coverage under the ACA plans offered in my state are also pretty comparable. In other words, if I have to move to an ACA plan, there wouldn’t be much difference.

And so, although I can’t explain the discrepancies, it doesn’t appear (from my individual vantage point) to be universal.

Well vis, do you agree that health care that a person can't afford isn't affordable at all?

Originally posted by Eladar
Well vis, do you agree that health care that a person can't afford isn't affordable at all?

Well, of course. And there appear to be particular groups for which the ACA does not offer affordable insurance: smokers, for example. Now, I can’t get on any judgmental high-horse with regard to smoking, because I once was a smoker. My premium rates dropped significantly when I quit. But in such cases, it is a question of opportunity cost—can I afford both to smoke and to buy health insurance?

Another group is people below the poverty threshold who live in states that chose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion.

I’m neither a cheerleader nor a chicken-little on the ACA, Eladar. Down the road, I’ll be fine saying “You were right” to you and some others on here, if that’s the way it turns out. I don’t think we’re there yet, but we may be.

In my life’s philosophy, harboring either hubris on the one hand, or resentment on the other, are a waste of energy—and, in either case, is always my error, which I strive to correct.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, of course. And there appear to be particular groups for which the ACA does not offer affordable insurance: smokers, for example. Now, I can’t get on any judgmental high-horse with regard to smoking, because I once was a smoker. My premium rates dropped significantly when I quit. But in such cases, it is a question of opportunity cost—can I afford ...[text shortened]... are a waste of energy—and, in either case, is always my error, which I strive to correct.

We will see if the states that do help provide coverage will be able to afford to continue subsidizing coverage when the Federal government stops giving the money to the states.

I've quoted one story of many that shows that people are having a difficult time with the increased pricing. I don't know if the people in question are smokers or not, but I have not seen any stories that say non smokers will be able to afford coverage.

Originally posted by Eladar
We will see if the states that do help provide coverage will be able to afford to continue subsidizing coverage when the Federal government stops giving the money to the states.

I've quoted one story of many that shows that people are having a difficult time with the increased pricing. I don't know if the people in question are smokers or not, but I have not seen any stories that say non smokers will be able to afford coverage.

Yeah, we're not really arguing here; just trading thoughts and possibilities.