Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obamacare sticker shock for middle class

Obamacare sticker shock for middle class

5 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027,0,2756077.story#axzz2ixXQRhe1

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.

Total wealth redistribution from the people who can afford it less.

dumpcare



lol Hilarious an attorney's individual plan is going from $98 to $238.00, most people on this board have been paying more than $238.00 for sometime. If they are going to put an article out about this, use someone that it's really going to effect where their rate's went from $98 to $500 per month. She will benefit though, her current plan at $98 a month couldn't possible cover maternity and her new one will. So it will be a wash at the end of the year. 3.57 of your income is not a lot to pay for an individual plan.

Guest


Guest

a two income of $80,000 in California is not that much. the cost of living there is so high. I read something the other day that said California was thinking of lowering the wages there so more people will qualify for ACA. << isn't that brilliant? lol

also, from the article...

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.
Laughing 
Nearly 2 million Californians have individual insurance, and several hundred thousand of them are losing their health plans in a matter of weeks.

Blue Shield of California sent termination letters to 119,000 customers last month whose plans don't meet the new federal requirements. About two-thirds of those people will experience a rate increase from switching to a new health plan, according to the company.

HMO giant Kaiser Permanente is canceling coverage for about half of its individual customers, or 160,000 people, and offering to automatically enroll them in the most comparable health plan available.

Markle

Markle

ppaca wrote:lol Hilarious an attorney's individual plan is going from $98 to $238.00, most people on this board have been paying more than $238.00 for sometime. If they are going to put an article out about this, use someone that it's really going to effect where their rate's went from $98 to $500 per month. She will benefit though, her current plan at $98 a month couldn't possible cover maternity and her new one will. So it will be a wash at the end of the year. 3.57 of your income is not a lot to pay for an individual plan.
And if she doesn't WANT or NEED maternity coverage?

Your pathetic effort to belittle an increase of well over 100% is trivial.

Cute try but this is a major boondoggle.

2seaoat



Cute try but this is a major boondoggle.


In certain areas it most certainly is......nobody would argue. In other areas it is a real positive in some people's lives.

The key is will Congress work in unison to improve and correct the bill?

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Cute try but this is a major boondoggle.


In certain areas it most certainly is......nobody would argue.  In other areas it is a real positive in some people's lives.  

The key is will Congress work in unison to improve and correct the bill?
Where are they going to pull all the money from, President Barack Hussein Obama's stash?

Nekochan

Nekochan

80K in Orange County, CA.... 

The median price of homes in Orange County, Ca:  over $500,000  Shocked 

 http://www.ocregister.com/articles/percent-504611-price-year.html

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Nekochan wrote:80K in Orange County, CA.... 

The median price of homes in Orange County, Ca:  over $500,000  Shocked 

 http://www.ocregister.com/articles/percent-504611-price-year.html
Before the real-estate crash, the price was much higher than that. I'm from California and I have lived in Orange County. Smartest thing I ever did was change my state of residency to Florida and come back here.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Nekochan

Nekochan

I don't know how people can afford those large metropolitan areas of CA. 
An 80K income is not what I would even call solid middle class when the median price of houses are over half a million.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Not to mention the high taxes out there....just the taxes on a half a million dollar house would be a killer.

Guest


Guest

And you don't even get any land. I think they capped the taxes w/ that proposition 8. Homeowners is very cheap there but I think the sales tax is at 10-11%

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:And you don't even get any land. I think they capped the taxes w/ that proposition 8. Homeowners is very cheap there but I think the sales tax is at 10-11%
I remember reading something about a cap in CA...  If you buy a new house, though,  how does that work with what the property tax starts out as?

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Cute try but this is a major boondoggle.


In certain areas it most certainly is......nobody would argue.  In other areas it is a real positive in some people's lives.  

The key is will Congress work in unison to improve and correct the bill?
Congress work together to correct it? Had the DEMS not shoved this down everyone's throats and READ the bill, it would not be LAW. Why did a law like this get passed...one that needs so much correction? Maybe because it was a TURD when it was thought of and still a turd now?



Last edited by PACEDOG#1 on 10/27/2013, 11:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Before the real-estate crash, the price was much higher than that. I'm from California and I have lived in Orange County. Smartest thing I ever did was change my state of residency to Florida and come back here.
THAT explains everything I need to know about you...

Guest


Guest

If your goal is to increase dependence and squeeze the middle class... forcing them to buy overpriced healthcare is a good idea. We saw what a squeeze and lack of opportunity did in the arab spring. How long before the occupy idiots wake up?

dumpcare



I never said it was not expensive to live on the west coast and that $80,000 was a lot of money, I was implying $238 per month was not a lot of money for health insurance, even 5 years ago. I am wondering though since she was only paying $98 per month if she did not have an HSA plan or just catastrophic plan.

Nekochan

Nekochan

ppaca wrote:I never said it was not expensive to live on the west coast and that $80,000 was a lot of money, I was implying $238 per month was not a lot of money for health insurance, even 5 years ago. I am wondering though since she was only paying $98 per month if she did not have an HSA plan or just catastrophic plan.
Oh, I understand and agree.  My husband is paying over $500 a month for our health insurance --we'd love to pay $238 a month. 

But geez...80K in southern CA..that should be a comfortable income, but I don't know how they get by on that out there.

Guest


Guest

ppaca wrote:I never said it was not expensive to live on the west coast and that $80,000 was a lot of money, I was implying $238 per month was not a lot of money for health insurance, even 5 years ago. I am wondering though since she was only paying $98 per month if she did not have an HSA plan or just catastrophic plan.
The point is the percentage increase in the man’s premiums.  $98 to $238 = a 242% increase. If your $3 gallon of milk rose 242% to $7.26 would you be upset?  After all $7.26 is not a lot of money.  If the man’s premium used to be $650 and it increased 242% to $1,573, now is it okay to be upset?

Markle

Markle

ppaca wrote:I never said it was not expensive to live on the west coast and that $80,000 was a lot of money, I was implying $238 per month was not a lot of money for health insurance, even 5 years ago. I am wondering though since she was only paying $98 per month if she did not have an HSA plan or just catastrophic plan.
If all she wanted was a catastrophic plan, WHY should GOVERNMENT force her to buy something she does not want?

Why not forcing you to buy a better car? WHY should the government not force you to do that too?

Say your car payments are $98.00 per month for your older model car that has no air bags and uses more gas than newer models. Should the GOVERNMENT have the right to force you to buy a better car, with two airbags and better gas mileage for $238.00 per month?

If not, why not?

2seaoat



Say your car payments are $98.00 per month for your older model car that has no air bags and uses more gas than newer models. Should the GOVERNMENT have the right to force you to buy a better car, with two airbags and better gas mileage for $238.00 per month?

I really do not understand your question on the air bags. However, I do know that government does set minimum liability policy in Auto insurance. So a person may have a preexisting policy of liability insurance, and on renewal is forced to pay a greater premium for the mandated increased coverage. We deal with those mandatory minimum policies every day and pay the higher premiums. The legislature made a decision that a person driving a vehicle should have coverage which does not transfer the cost of an accident to the taxpayers. Even with these mandated insurance policies with the higher premiums, taxpayers often foot the bill for an accident which exceeds the policy limits.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Say your car payments are $98.00 per month for your older model car that has no air bags and uses more gas than newer models. Should the GOVERNMENT have the right to force you to buy a better car, with two airbags and better gas mileage for $238.00 per month?

I really do not understand your question on the air bags.  However, I do know that government does set minimum liability policy in Auto insurance.   So a person may have a preexisting policy of liability insurance, and on renewal is forced to pay a greater premium for the mandated increased coverage.   We deal with those mandatory minimum policies every day and pay the higher premiums.   The legislature made a decision that a person driving a vehicle should have coverage which does not transfer the cost of an accident to the taxpayers.   Even with these mandated insurance policies with the higher premiums, taxpayers often foot the bill for an accident which exceeds the policy limits.
NOT talking about liability insurance.

Cars with air bags are supposed to be SAFER than cars without air bags. Whether they are, or not, may be somewhat debatable.

Back to the question, SHOULD the GOVERNMENT force you to buy a more expensive care because it is safer and gets better gas mileage.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Say your car payments are $98.00 per month for your older model car that has no air bags and uses more gas than newer models. Should the GOVERNMENT have the right to force you to buy a better car, with two airbags and better gas mileage for $238.00 per month?

I really do not understand your question on the air bags.  However, I do know that government does set minimum liability policy in Auto insurance.   So a person may have a preexisting policy of liability insurance, and on renewal is forced to pay a greater premium for the mandated increased coverage.   We deal with those mandatory minimum policies every day and pay the higher premiums.   The legislature made a decision that a person driving a vehicle should have coverage which does not transfer the cost of an accident to the taxpayers.   Even with these mandated insurance policies with the higher premiums, taxpayers often foot the bill for an accident which exceeds the policy limits.


please verify that claim

dumpcare



Yea, you guys I give up you're so right, why should this woman in Florida (in link) lose her go blue plan for $56.00 per month, that basically has no coverage? She doesn't even understand her plan, she does not have a copay, but rather $50 towards a doctor visit, $15.00 toward prescriptions, free blood work and a dental cleaning once a year. As she has stated she has outpatient, well the agent either lied or she thinks she does. The plan was only meant for the very poor or uninsurable's. So if this woman goes to the hospital, inpatient or out, has xrays, she or the taxpayer are on the hook. Yes, the plan they are offering her is too pricey for her but about in line for a 56 year old, but if she would read the letter it also said to call her agent so they could go over all the plans and see if she qualified for subsidy. She will be on fox tomorrow.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/10/28/three-fox-news-shows-called-fla-obamacare-detractor/?hpid=z3

As for the woman in California, I do not feel sorry for the premium increase at all, she will now have maternity for that unborn child, which she didn't have before. So annual premium goes to $2856, what's a normal delivery around $10,000? Don't really know. If she has complications upward toward $25,000? So who's pays for that? The taxpayer's of CA?


2seaoat



please verify that claim

You are texting on you cell phone and NSA inadvertently gets google translate to understand the communication and immediately intervenes.....you hit a cub scout troop lined outside the zoo for a visit with a giant panda and cause 3 million of medical costs to the kids who many have no insurance policy. The hospital treats those cub scouts. Medicaid is applied. Taxpayers lose because first, they should have enough funds to have their own Chrissy translator, and second the liability insurance is insufficient. Society sets a liability limits which make the wrong doer and not the taxpayer responsible.

2seaoat



Back to the question, SHOULD the GOVERNMENT force you to buy a more expensive care because it is safer and gets better gas mileage.

There may be policy criteria which justify the same, but I do not see the applicability of your analogy. We are talking insurance. Why is government able to mandate other than liability a minimum medical coverage on car insurance? Why should a person have to have higher liability, or medical coverage on Auto insurance?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obamacare sticker shock for middle class

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum