to all your questions...
It doesn't matter!
People liked what they had, no matter how much "better" you decide the new plan is, if they can't afford it, they can't afford it!

rickyp wrote:tom

to all your questions...
It doesn't matter!
People liked what they had, no matter how much "better" you decide the new plan is, if they can't afford it, they can't afford it!

Of course it matters.
If you have a shell that doesn't really provide effective coverage, the fact you like it and can afford it is meaningless. The first time you have an accident or a serious illness you find out liking and affording the cheap premiums ends up meaning so little is actually covered you go bankrupt. And all your unpaid bills are covered by the state or passed on to other consumers... is that fair?
If having effective coverage is unaffordable, You may qualify for a subsidy...Do you?
If having effective coverage is still unaffordable, then you may have misplaced priorities... (This is usually the republican response where people have to be self reliant and responsible. ) The state shouldn't be responsible for back stopping your medical debts if you can't pay them - just because you want satellite television .

rickyp wrote:fate

Bolshoi ballet.

That is patently made up

Really? You're claiming that health insurance premiums haven't been going up, and that companies offering coverage and actual coverage is going down?
I'll offer some evidence here... but I'd be really interested in what source you have that contradicts this ...
You don't have any do you?

Companies, forced by law to provide health insurance, keep trying to limit their investment. So plans keep getting worse. And health insuracne companies keep trying to ratchet up profits so the value in every plan goes down. (despite all the choice)
With or without the ACA, you would have experienced the same thing.

danivon wrote:Well, that was some compelling evidence and in no way just cheap jibes.

Off you toddle, then, Chummy.

The Obama administration came out with a report Monday arguing that 1 million single adults between the ages of 18 and 35 will be eligible for an Obamacare insurance plan costing less than $50 a month.

That’s news to me.

I’m a healthy 34-year-old with a taxable income hovering right around the Obamacare subsidy level who, for the last several years, has purchased a relatively inexpensive catastrophic health insurance plan from Blue Shield. I get to see the doctor four times a year for a $30 co-pay, and I won’t have to spend the rest of my life working off the debt if I get hit by a bus.

Last month, however, I received a letter from my insurance company informing me that my plan was “no longer available” due to “new requirements for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.” I am being funneled into the closest equivalent plan under the new California health exchange, and my monthly premium is going to rise by nearly 43% to $214 a month.

My old plan was as bare-bones as they came, so I assumed that even though the new plan would cost more, my coverage would improve under Obamacare, at least marginally.

It did not.

Under my old plan, my maximum out-of-pocket expense was $4,900. Under the new plan, I’m on the hook for up to $6,350. Copays for my doctor visits will double. For urgent-care visits, they will quadruple. Though slightly cheaper plans exist if I decide to shop around on the exchange, I will lose my dental coverage should I switch.

Needless to say, I am not pleased. . . .

Backers of Obamacare also note that although young healthy people are being asked to sacrifice, they are the ones most likely to be eligible for a subsidized plan. But what exactly does that mean? According to Covered California’s online calculator, were I to make $30,000 (hardly rolling in dough), I would be eligible for a subsidy of $40 a month.

I would still be paying more than I am now for substandard health insurance.

What I mean by substandard is this. We’ve been hearing people complain that the Obamacare-approved policies cover too much, not too little. That’s part of the reason premiums are higher. But from my view, a higher monthly premium along with higher copays create a disincentive. Paying more to see a doctor means there’s less chance I’'ll use that service unless I’m absolutely desperate.

All of this isn’t simply idle hand-wringing. If young healthy people like myself feel we’re being taken advantage of, and opt out of purchasing insurance -- paying the penalty instead -- the healthcare exchanges will collapse. (The penalty in year one for opting out is only $95 or 1% of your salary, whichever is higher -- far less than the cost of even the most basic insurance plan.)

When Obamacare comes fully online, it will do wonders to provide healthcare for people who were not eligible for Medicaid but still could not afford health insurance. If this system is going to be sustainable, however, we’re going to need to find a way to get older and wealthier Americans to chip in more. Because, right now, it’s young, middle-class people just outside the subsidy range who are biting the bullet. Young, middle-class people who already bore the highest toll in the recent financial collapse, who have seen our wages sliced and our job prospects dwindle.

You can only ride our backs for so long before we’re going to tell you enough is enough.

rickyp wrote:ray

1. The exchange will work just like Kayak.
2. If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it.

yep. he was wrong.
he didn't calculate that people would want to keep crappy insurance that didn't meet minimum standards, and which would become transparent to them only when they required the insurance...
His critics get to jump all over these misstatements and make hay today. But they don''t offer solid alternative, so this will pass.

rickyp wrote:His critics get to jump all over these misstatements and make hay today. But they don''t offer solid alternative, so this will pass.

t sounds like you are saying that the ends justify the means. If Obama lied it is okay with you because it fits your ideological views.
2.This represents a fundamental philosophical disagreement. You believe that the government is smarter when it comes to determining insurance plans for a particular individual. Consumers need to be protected by the state for their own good. I believe that individuals are smarter than you think and need to make their own life choices. Tom should be allowed to get the insurance that serves him best!

The state does not back stop my bills, I always have had insurance but it is now getting worse while costing me more, in large part thanks to the ACA laws. This simply make bankruptcy all the more likely in MY situation