Kingwood Underground
the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family
Login - Create Account - Help
Clean out your garage on Kingwood bookoo! Or find local garage sales on Yard Sale Search.com
KU Live!

ObamaCare is Horrible! Get rid of it now

who's talking here?

SoupIsGoodFood 5
jackass 2
AwesomeTattooedDragon 1
Texas Lady 1
Dorothy Parker 1
TinktheSprite 8
snowprincess 1
DatBoyHooD 1
BuiltinTX70 1
witchywoman 1
Leila 6
AMDG 9
Karras 7

     » send to friend     » save in my favorites     » flag dangerous topic flag as a dangerous topic

Karras --- 1 years ago -

Both parties need to come together to get rid of this failure.

"Success stories about President Barack Obama's health care law frequently rely on the personal anecdotes of Americans who say that if it weren't for Obamacare they would be broke or dead.

But critics counter that the narrative dismisses the concerns of those who haven't realized the law's promises. Many middle-class Americans who get no help from the government to pay for coverage ? and who rarely use medical care ? say the law has caused them financial harm and diminished their quality of life. Finding costs insurmountable, some say they are passing on coverage or using loopholes that offer them access to medical care without crippling their finances.

"....42-year-old Tiffany, one of several people U.S. News spoke with whose last names are being withheld to protect their privacy, the costs of coverage to her and her husband this year were overwhelming: $1,221.20 per month, with an $11,700 deductible. If they were to divorce, they realized, they would qualify for cheaper coverage. Alternatively, Tiffany's husband, who is self-employed, would need to make an extra $20,000 a year to make up the difference once medication and doctor visits are factored in.

Though the option of ending their 17-year marriage wasn't truly on the table, to them it accentuated the lack of options they faced this year. The Columbus, Ohio-area residents already had been unhappy with the plan they bought the previous year, finding that it covered few of the services they needed. Their regular medical needs include providing medication for a daughter with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and another with mild asthma.

As a family of five making between $115,000 and $125,000 a year, they did not qualify for subsidies. And doctors in the plans available were far away.

"This year, I just cried," Tiffany says of the moment she saw how much insurance was going to cost them. "I'm not an emotional person. I was just floored. I completely shut down because there were no options."

The family decided to opt for a short-term health insurance plan that offers them coverage for 360 days at a cost of $250 a month. By going this route, Tiffany and her husband will still have to pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income. They also will not receive the same consumer protections they once had, but they say the monthly savings will help them pay more expenses out of pocket.

"Under the circumstances, they actually saved us," she says. "I am so happy there was a loophole to get out of Obamacare being crammed down our throats."

...anyone who makes more than $47,520 a year for an individual or $97,000 for a family of four generally does not qualify for insurance subsidies, and the threshold can be lower if health expenses are not making up 9 percent of a person's income. That amounts to anywhere from 6 million to 9 million Americans who pay costs themselves ? a larger portion of the population than some have characterized and a figure that appears significant when compared to the 9.2 million people who signed up for coverage on Healthcare.gov this period.

...The premium increases this year were too much for Josh, 35, who lives in Tucson, Arizona, and decided to go without coverage. At a salary of $56,700, he did not qualify for subsidies, and the lowest-cost plan of two available to him on Healthcare.gov had a $4,200 deductible and premiums of $331.74 a month ? an increase from the $204.15-a-month and $2,000 deductible plan he had last year, which he already struggled to afford.

"Honestly, I live paycheck to paycheck," he says. "I keep saying I'll save with the next raise I get, but then any of that gets eaten up with rising costs of premiums or rent."

Josh, who manages a homeowners association, hasn't been to the doctor in years. He has never been married and doesn't have children. His description fits that of the "young desirables" insurers say are integral to making the exchanges work ? those who pay more into the system than they take out.

"I have seen a lot of positive testimonials on Healthcare.gov, but I haven't heard one positive thing about the Affordable Care Act from people I know," he says.

He is putting aside money every month to prepare for paying the penalty. He also says he is considering moving to Canada and is very nervous about not having coverage.

...Democrats haven't turned a blind eye to cost struggles for consumers, though at times they have not demonstrated
that responding to these concerns is a priority. During a health care debate hosted by CNN last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., scolded a small-business owner who said she was uninsured because she couldn't afford the policies available to her.


"No one said the Affordable Care Act is perfect," Volk says. "There absolutely is an affordability problem for deductibles and those who don't qualify for cost-sharing help. That's definitely a way that the ACA falls short."

...Some aren't waiting for fixes. Nick, 35, and his wife, who own a photography business in the Washington, D.C., area, had considered moving to a less-expensive part of the country so they could save on other expenses to pay for rising insurance costs.

They didn't buy on Healthcare.gov last year because at earnings of about $120,000 a year they wouldn't qualify for subsidies. This year, they decided to enter a health sharing ministry, in which members share in medical expenses every month but have moral clauses and no guarantee of coverage. This option exempts them from paying the penalty in 2018.

The plan they had last year, at $527.58 per month, was no longer available, and they received a letter from their insurer saying that if they did not select a new plan then they would be automatically enrolled in a comparable plan that costs $872.63 per month. By shopping on the exchange, they could access a plan for $465.95 at the lowest, but it was a bronze plan, which covers fewer services, and carried a deductible of $14,100 for the couple.

Now, Nick says, they face the equivalent of $250 per month with a $3,750 deductible and can see the same doctors they had been.

They used their health care only once last year: to go in for an annual physical, saying they felt they should use it for something given how much they were paying every month.

"For us, it's not worth it right now," Nick says. "We're not going to the doctor at all and we don't have medical conditions. It's a lot for a small risk that something major could happen."

link title 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 1 years ago -

Is this were I jump in with the "I told you so!!" 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

Do you have ACA, Karras? I know people who are glad to have health insurance where before they were denied, denied, denied due to preexisting conditions. I know people who are business owners who have coverage for the entire fanning for the first time in their lives with a policy they can afford. True, ACA cost more money. But so does my private insurance. Who earns all this new money? So who's the real criminal here? 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 1 years ago -

I know people who are glad to have health insurance where before they were denied, denied, denied due to preexisting conditions.

When someone else is paying for your health insurance. Yeah, you'd be glad.

Wait until they actually have to use their health insurance.

I know one couple that got insurance through Obamacare and had a decent monthly premium. They were over the moon about it............until they actually had to use it. Once they saw the deductible they had to meet. They were floored. Now they're not so much "over the moon" about it. 

jackass --- 1 years ago -

They didn't know the deductible before they signed up? That sounds like bs to me. 

Karras --- 1 years ago -

I know people who are glad to have health insurance where before they were denied, denied, denied due to preexisting conditions. I know people who are business owners who have coverage for the entire fanning for the first time in their lives with a policy they can afford.

I think these are fake people you use to try and defend the debacle known as Obamacare.

There are more people hurt by Obama Care than helped.

Another problem with OBamacare is that those up to the age of 26 can stay on their parents plan. Doesn't that take out the young adults needed to support the ACA? 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 1 years ago -

They didn't know the deductible before they signed up? That sounds like bs to me.

I'm sure they did. They just probably thought someone else was going to pay for that as well. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

Is it this week that the ACA replacement was going to get rolled out? 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

actually see they rolled it out today - 

Texas Lady --- 1 years ago -

It is obvious that there are a lot of flaws with this Law. The deductibles, the fine if you can't pay for the premium. I asked for COBRA in writing through my previous employer for one month and they never responded so now I am getting fined for not having it for those thirty days. If the fine is a hefty one I am taking them to small claims court. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

The Patient Freedom Act (PFA) of 2017

takes power from Washington and returns it to state capitols and individuals in order to expand access to health care for all Americans, especially those with pre-existing conditions. This proposal gives patients the power by making enrollment easy, requiring price transparency, eliminating mandates, and transferring power over insurance back to patients and state governments.

Repeals: This proposal repeals 5 burdensome federal mandates under Obamacare: the individual mandate, the employer mandate, Essential Health Benefits, actuarial value requirements, and age band requirements.

Keeps: This proposal keeps essential consumer protections, including guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewability, no annual or lifetime limits, dependent coverage through age 26, and prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions, and prohibiting discrimination based on health status
State Option: After repeal, states will have one of three options:

1. Better Choice Plan?State determines its own insurance regulations and receives funding equal to 95% of Obamacare tax credits and Obamacare Medicaid expansion funding in the form of either a per capita block grant or an advanceable, refundable tax credits. Tax credits will be age-adjusted and means tested.

2. Design an Alternative Solution without Federal Assistance?This option would return power to the states to design and regulate insurance markets that work for their specific populations, without any federal assistance.

3. Maintain current trajectory?State legislature votes to reimpose mandates, exchange plans, and federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies. States that chose this option will only receive funds in an equal manner to those states that choose the Better Choice Plan.

Eligible Individuals: This proposal provides financial assistance to legal residents of the United States not receiving income tax benefits from having employer sponsored insurance, and who do not have Medicare, Medicaid or other government funded health care. This goal is to provide roughly the same federal benefit that those with employer-sponsored insurance receive to those who do not have employer sponsored insurance.

Funding: Each state will receive the funds that it would have received under Obamacare if 95% of everyone eligible for subsidies enrolled; in addition, the state will receive the money that would have paid for a Medicaid expansion. If states choosing this option have already expanded Medicaid, the state could either keep its Medicaid expansion or convert it to subsidies to help individuals purchase private insurance.

Distribution of Funds: The money will be deposit directly into an individual?s Roth HSA to assist in the purchase of health care. States will have the option to either receive the total sum of money for administration by the state, or to have the Federal government directly administer and give a tax credit to qualifying individuals. States will have the option to auto-enroll individuals. If auto-enrollment is selected, individuals will be allowed to opt-out of coverage. The auto-enroll feature eliminates the need for either an individual or employer mandate.

Benefit Design: All individuals receiving the health credit would receive a Roth Health Savings Account (HSA), a high-deductible health plan (HDHP), and a basic pharmacy benefit plan. The only mandated benefits would be those required of ERISA plans. There will be continuous coverage protections, as well as the essential consumer protections listed above. Beyond that, regulation of the insurance market reverts to the state.
Expand Health Savings Accounts: On a federal level, HSA law will change to allow HSAs to pay for health insurance premiums, for family members to pool dollars to pay for increased expenses, and to allow insurance companies to offer HSA/HDHP policies, which cover all inpatient services.

Price Transparency: To make HSAs more useful, providers receiving payment for HSAs will be required to publish ?cash prices? for services paid for with an HSA or with cash. In order to protect those who do need emergency services, the PFA calls for limited out of network surcharges for emergency medical services paid for with an HSA 

Karras --- 1 years ago -

It amazes me how inept both parties by not rolling this program back. Republicans said they had a replacement plan in their back pocket. Now that they have all branches in government they still can't get anything done. Instead of Trump beating up on reporters (which is fun to watch) he needs to go after Ryan and McConnell and give them a deadline. Ridiculous.

This is one of those cases were if the lawmakers actually lived with the laws they created, this plan would have been abandoned in year 1. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

not a whole lot of detail there -

In a nutshell my quick read is - fed will pay same money to states as it does now for ACA -

Feds mandate that states do the good stuff from ACA ( universal care, pre ex conditions, etc )

Feds repeal the individual mandate, the employer mandate, Essential Health Benefits, actuarial value requirements, and age band requirements.

But seems in a first read they have pushed the how to do this back to the states. - 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

I think these are fake people you use to try and defend the debacle known as Obamacare.

No. Actually, there was one who posted on here about his Wife's new ACA policy. Believe it or not, to those of you who get healthcare easily enough, there are those in the population who are deemed a "risk" and could not get health insurance previously to ACA. These people who hold good jobs and are willing to pay anything or healthcare for their loved one. So money is not the issue here. From my understanding, the ONE thing Trump wants to keep in ACA is the feature that where no one can be denied healthcare coverage. All I am saying is that despite the high costs, some people are glad to have coverage at any cost. The plan needs changes and tweaking after it's first implementation. Sure. The loopholes that allow insurance companies to gouge people being one of them IMO. But being denied healthcare should not one of those changes. 

Karras --- 1 years ago -

But being denied healthcare should not one of those changes.

No, but people shouldn't have to pay outrageous monthly rates and high deductibles to pay for those previously denied health care. 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

Again, my friends are not hurting financially. They just want healthcare available to them after being constantly denied for preexisting conditions. Not everyone is in this same financial situation, i understand. But that was my example of why ACA works for them. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

It amazes me how inept both parties by not rolling this program back. Republicans said they had a replacement plan in their back pocket. Now that they have all branches in government they still can't get anything done. Instead of Trump beating up on reporters (which is fun to watch) he needs to go after Ryan and McConnell and give them a deadline. Ridiculous.

Karras - I agree with almost all of that - don't think you can look to the democrats to do much to repeal ACA - think in the main - they think it needs improving, but not replacing - it is after all their plan.

But think you are spot on - I was expecting much much more detail and change from the republican party and the President - it was such a huge campaign issue - expected a much more actionable plan than what was proposed. 

Leila --- 1 years ago -

I have to agree with Tink here. One of the features of the ACA is there are no longer pre-existing conditions that can be excluded.

Insurance companies are going to make sure they get their profits when they know right away they will have insured customers coming in with expensive health care needs. These people were once either excluded or had clauses pertaining to specific conditions that would not be covered for them.

I know someone with a child with a birth defect that used to be basically uninsurable.

Also, now people can't be kicked off a plan after too many claims. I know people that had that happen after being insured for years and then having too many expensive medical claims.

It also used to be with many plans that any child that was not a full time student was kicked off their parents insurance when they turned 18.

So I don't we can do just a simple roll back to where we once were. There are elements to the ACA that if people are totally honest that are needed and desired. But those are costly. 

jackass --- 1 years ago -

Someone should look deeper into price gouging by big pharma and healthcare providers. We aren't getting enough bang for our bucks. Theres no excuse for selling meds in the united states for 20x what you would pay in other countries. 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

I know someone with a child with a birth defect that used to be basically uninsurable.


^^^And then there's that. 

Leila --- 1 years ago -

No, but people shouldn't have to pay outrageous monthly rates and high deductibles to pay for those previously denied health care.?

But how will it be funded? You know that the insurance companies are going to get their profits. 

Leila --- 1 years ago -

Someone should look deeper into price gouging by big pharma and healthcare providers. We aren't getting enough bang for our bucks. Theres no excuse for selling meds in the united states for 20x what you would pay in other countries.?

They are all in the back pockets of the elected. The rest of us are just cogs in the wheel. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

But how will it be funded? You know that the insurance companies are going to get their profits.

Just IMO - the real villain in all of this is the escalating cost of health care.

Individuals don't price check all that hard because the insurance companies primarily pay, and insurance companies don't exert too much price pressure since it is an actuarial game to them - they just increase premiums to cover the costs.

There is very limited market forces driving the price of health care.

No clue if there is an easy fix - but if there was some short term cap on premiums, - it would give the insurance companies incentive to put more price pressure on the providers. 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

Insurance companies dictate which meds my husband and I can or cannot take despite what the doctors what us to take. Insurance companies dictate which doctors people see in some policies. Insurance dictates if you can have surgery. Insurance dictates how much care you get post-surgery. And believe it or not, Insurance told us my husband did not have cancer "enough" to claim on it. "Enough"? Insurance companies are out of hand! Someone has to put a hand over them to stop this crazy mess! 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 1 years ago -

Insurance companies, whether it be auto, health, or home, are an evil scam.

I despise ALL insurance. 

Karras --- 1 years ago -

I know someone with a child with a birth defect that used to be basically uninsurable.

My nephew was born with birth defect (back in the late 90's) my brother had no problems getting him insured. 

Karras --- 1 years ago -

Insurance companies are out of hand! Someone has to put a hand over them to stop this crazy mess!

Maybe we should get rid of health insurance all together, let the free market decide on prices. IF the power to purchase is put in the hands of the consumer then prices should go down and service much better. 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

My nephew was born with birth defect (back in the late 90's) my brother had no problems getting him insured.


I am so glad your nephewe can get insurance and the healthcare he probably needs. But his was not the case across the board. That is generalizing. 

Leila --- 1 years ago -

Just IMO - the real villain in all of this is the escalating cost of health care.

Individuals don't price check all that hard because the insurance companies primarily pay, and insurance companies don't exert too much price pressure since it is an actuarial game to them - they just increase premiums to cover the costs.


Well, we all know that the insured have subsidized the uninsured when we get charged at the hospital. Also our hospitals are for-profit institutions for the most part and if they can gouge us for an aspirin they certainly will. As you said, as long our insurance will pay for it, most of us do not object.I know I don't when I have been in the hospital.

But another issue is that we are used to a very high standard of health care. In other countries, mothers leave the hospital a few hours after giving birth in many cases. People don't get private rooms and in many cases are served in multi bed wards. I am also pretty sure medical professional are not paid as highly in many other countries as they are in ours.

My friends in Great Britain pay extra for privatized health care if they want a standard above and beyond what is offered in the government plan. My friend recently had a stroke and used private insurance for her treatment because she knew the standard of care would be much better. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

Maybe we should get rid of health insurance all together, let the free market decide on prices. IF the power to purchase is put in the hands of the consumer then prices should go down and service much better.

Insurance companies provide a real service of spreading risk - that is why they exist. We all pay and have our exposure to catastrophic costs capped.

I am, however, in general agreement for higher deductibles - much like what folks balk about in ACA.

Just the current system has it a little backwards - the marginal cost to reduce the deductible does not tend to be important to the wealthy or the well employed. ( a competitive part of a compensation package) so the wealthier ones, who could most easily pay the higher deductible, tend to have the low deductibles, while the poorer folks how cant really afford the cost of the low deductible policies - wind up with the high deductibles and they feel that pain the most.

Not exactly sure how to fix that - it may just be a fact of life - but I think the cost of routine visits and minor things that could be handled by an RN or a PA - would be driven down if people had to pay them out of pocket. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

My friends in Great Britain pay extra for privatized health care if they want a standard above and beyond what is offered in the government plan. My friend recently had a stroke and used private insurance for her treatment because she knew the standard of care would be much better.

Agree - however I do think there is some good in this type of system - kind of a base system of government provided services - that the government has incentive to keep prices of service reasonable.

And an parallel private system - for those willing to pay for it. I think there may be more competition for the private dollars since there would always be a lesser cost alternative. 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

Preventative care. That's how it's fixed. If illness were prevented instead of tended to, people would be less ill, hospital population would go down. In my Dream World anyway.

Makes no sense to me that insurance pays for abortions but not birth control. Insurance pays for hospital stays but not physicals. Yep It's all backwards. 

Leila --- 1 years ago -

Preventative care. That's how it's fixed. If illness were prevented instead of tended to, people would be less ill, hospital population would go down. In my Dream World anyway.

Makes no sense to me that insurance pays for abortions but not birth control. Insurance pays for hospital stays but not physicals. Yep It's all backwards.?


But my insurance and many others pay for all of this. The problem is that those that would benefit most don't usually take advantage. Maybe education would help people understand how prevention works but I also think a lot of denial is involved. 

Leila --- 1 years ago -

Agree - however I do think there is some good in this type of system - kind of a base system of government provided services - that the government has incentive to keep prices of service reasonable.

And an parallel private system - for those willing to pay for it. I think there may be more competition for the private dollars since there would always be a lesser cost alternative.?


I tend to agree with this in theory. To me it is the only way subsidized health care makes fiscal sense. Pay up charges for higher level of care and more luxuries like private rooms. Sort of like hotel classes.

The problem is that we are already accustomed to a level of care most world citizens would never dream of experiencing. Which is why people from all over the world come here for treatment.

Going down to basic care would mean taking away services our general population has come to expect and that would seem like a step backward to most folks, not a step forward.

Let's face it, we want it all. Excellent high standard health care with the price tag of basic care. Oh...and don't raise my taxes either. lol. We are a spoiled nation in many ways. 

TinktheSprite --- 1 years ago -

But my insurance and many others pay for all of this.
Would you believe medicare doesn't pay for my friend's annual physical and Well-Woman care? She is elderly, retired from a major corporation. The chances of her being hospitalized are greater than that of a younger person. Yet there is no interest in keeping her healthy? smh

I have policies that actually PAY us to have preventative care exams scans, and others. That is a step in the right direction. 

Karras --- 1 years ago -

or the well employed.

Seriously, is this some new term the left is throwing around to divide Americans even further?

Curious, who determines who is well employed? 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

Seriously, is this some new term the left is throwing around to divide Americans even further?

Just made it up, out of the blue - looking for a short hand way to describe the difference in medical benefits from say those in a major oil co, and those tossing fries at McDonalds - happy to use another label that you like better. 

Dorothy Parker --- 1 years ago -

Depending on the insurance plan, they do cover birth control. I've never heard of any insurance plan covering abortion. That's a cash only procedure. 

BuiltinTX70 --- 1 years ago -

Damn, this is one good thread on healthcare. Type of debate we do need.

IMO, until you take the profit margin out of healthcare, there will be no answer. Someone's going to suffer.

I'm not saying they shouldn't turn a profit, but it's the monkey wrench in all this.

Example: Forget what HMO (maybe Americare) but they lost millions on Obamacare. However, overall, they made billions in profit. So why drop that small portion of their book? 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 1 years ago -

I think you have to go back to the beginning, as with drugs. The FDA Makes it horribly expensive to do trials on a new drug, and the litigious country of ours also adds to the cost of developing drugs. By the time we get the price tag, it's huge- I needed eye drops and they cost $300.00- I asked why, and the pharmacist said w/o insurance, they were $1000.00! 

page 1 2
Login to add your comments!

see more discussions about...


Online now:
hit counters

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Ice Box

Kingwood Underground