[jon.kiparsky]

That sounds like it was a little dicey. Glad you found something - breathing is important.

[lordofduct]

Bort, on 30 September 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

$300 for an inhaler.

This is why a national health service is a good idea. Inhalers in the UK, even for employed people, cost a tiny fraction of that. One of my friends requires three different types of inhaler. All together, they cost him about £30 (about $50-60), and they last, his health depending, around 2-3 months.

Private health care isn't about giving your clients the best treatments, it's about gouging them for all they are worth.

Note it wasn't his private insurance making it cost 300 dollars. It was his lack of insurance.

Though there is evidence that leads to arguments stating that our private insurance model in the states does increase the cost of healthcare.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 30 September 2013 - 09:07 AM

[Bort]

lordofduct, on 30 September 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Bort, on 30 September 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

$300 for an inhaler.

This is why a national health service is a good idea. Inhalers in the UK, even for employed people, cost a tiny fraction of that. One of my friends requires three different types of inhaler. All together, they cost him about £30 (about $50-60), and they last, his health depending, around 2-3 months.

Private health care isn't about giving your clients the best treatments, it's about gouging them for all they are worth.

Note it wasn't his private insurance making it cost 300 dollars. It was his lack of insurance.

Though there is evidence showing that our private insurance model in the states does increase healthcare costs on the base level.

This is why I disagree with it.

UK = No medical insurance, £30 means you can breathe for 2-3 months.
US = No medical insurance, $300 means you can breathe for a single month.

Same circumstances, yet widely different prices.

[lordofduct]

Well UK = no possibility for no medical insurance.

It's not an comparison one can actually draw, you can't NOT have medical insurance in the UK, it's supplied by the state. The inhaler cost more than 30 quid, it was subsidized by the state.

But I agree, I'm for a single payer system, with a market for extended private insurance... just like the UK.

[farrell2k]

no2pencil, on 30 September 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

a good friend of my wife. Her mother lost her foot because it took FOUR YEARS for a standard procedure. Because the 'well oiled' government ran health-care system takes so long. She made more than 10+ appointments, some of which were canceled in advance, one was canceled while she was in the waiting room. It was a huge mess. But with it being free, & government provided, she doesn't get to choose where & with whom the procedure was done. So now she has one less foot because of the wonderful, free, government provided health care!

We also had 2 friend from Canada move to the United States in 2005-ish. They hated the way that their free health care worked, & would rather move here. That's how wonderful it can be.

Eh, I hate the argument from personal experience, because it is generally not representative of the population as a whole. There is no such thing as "free healthcare". That's the biggest canard going. Health care is publicly funded via taxes, not free. I don't care what anyone says. Standard procedures for anything don't take four years. I am quite sure you're just being political and attempting to make it look worse than it is. What's the full story, if you even know it? Was she diabetic and eventually just lost her foot?

Not only do we need to see real stats, but I am sure any American can also give you a U.S. healthcare horror story. My mother, a diabetic, broke both her feet in an awkward fall, but it took two hospitals to actually determine her feet both had hairline fractures. One hospital completely missed it, and it wasn't only until a week later when the pain worsened that she decided to go to another hospital, which then found the breaks. Pretty strange thing to happen in such an "exceptional" country with the "best healthcare in the world"...

What we need are real statistics on the status of Canadian healthcare.

macosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Why am I obligated to pay for people indefinitely?

Because you live in a society, brotha! If you want roads, schools, police, fire services, water and sewage filtration, relatively safe food, a military, affordable education, and a strong economy that goes along with all of that, you need to contribute to keep the system going. We all pay for one another in some way. Considering the age of our country, it wasn't too long ago when most roads weren't paved, our military was essentially non-existent, the poor readily died of curable diseases (rickets was a big one), and fire companies literally sat in front of your burning house watching it burn until you could come up with their payment to put the fire out. Not to mention the loaves of bread filled with saw dust and the radioactive tonics that were promised to cure diabetes and baldness that routinely made their rounds in markets. There's a reason we no longer have a small government, and that's because it never worked for the people. So that's essentially why you are obligated to pay for me and I am obligated to pay for you.

EDIT: The exchanges open today! Go buy your own healthcare. You will get help. Check out the subsidy calculator. CRAP! I missed a day!!! They open tomorrow.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 30 September 2013 - 09:47 AM

[supersloth]

Bort, on 30 September 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

$300 for an inhaler.

This is why a national health service is a good idea. Inhalers in the UK, even for employed people, cost a tiny fraction of that. One of my friends requires three different types of inhaler. All together, they cost him about £30 (about $50-60), and they last, his health depending, around 2-3 months.

Private health care isn't about giving your clients the best treatments, it's about gouging them for all they are worth.

just to clarify this a little further, i take two inhalers, a maintenance inhaler, and a rescue inhaler.

With my rescue inhaler, with insurance it was $40 and without it is $42. one of these generally lasts me about 3 months.

With my maintenance inhaler, with insurance it was $50 and without it was $300. one of these lasts me a month.

[Michael26]

Obamacare Isn't Communism, And 13 Other Questions Answered

[Craig328]

Well, I'm not going to speculate, I'm going to make clear: this new law will buttfuck my family (and most of the people I know). I'm self-employed and buy my family's health insurance privately. Our premium for a family of 4 is $388/mo. Our carrier sent us a letter the other day offering to convert our policy to a new policy to extend us for a further 4 months at a new monthly premium of about $440. Same coverage, same everything...just with a new inception date so it can last for 12 months. Called them this morning to ask why I would voluntarily accept a $50+ bump in monthly premiums when my coverage is exactly the same and they told me that when my policy expires in July of 2014, the premium increase will be way more than that due to the provisions of the ACA.

In our case, the ACA will force us to purchase prenatal care coverage, ob-gyn coverage, addiction treatment riders, and a host of other mandatory new benefits we don't need and won't use. I mention the three above because of them all, they're the most ridiculous. My wife had a hysterectomy 11 years ago...but we're getting the full blown prenatal and ob-gyn benefits options because we don't have the choice to refuse them. We're not addicts either so all the addiction treatment benefits aren't a necessity either (I honestly don't plan to start shooting heroin anytime soon either).

Anyway, as it turns out, my carrier apparently used the subsidy calculator as well because they quoted me likely premium amounts for 2014 renewal. In my case, our premium will more than double what I'm paying right now for coverage (keeping to the copay and deductibles I've chosen for our private coverage). We'll go from a premium of around $4600/yr to one that is estimated to nearly $9800/yr. And before anyone spits out the patently asinine claim that this is due to normal medical inflation, my annual premium for the same coverage rose $252/yr last year, and that was on top of a rise of $240/year from the year before.

In other words, we'll be going from normal year over year premium increases in the 10% range per year to over 100%.

No way in hell this isn't due to the ACA. My family of 4 is going to get legally robbed of just short of $5K next year...all due to this horseshit...with absolutely zero benefit to us. Worst fucking legislation in the history of this country.

[lordofduct]

Sounds to me like you need to shop around for another insurance provider.

[jon.kiparsky]

What rates are this company's competitors quoting you?

EDIT: Apparently great minds think alike... and so does mine.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 30 September 2013 - 10:17 AM

[Craig328]

Do you think I won't shop this around? I shop this around every year but what on earth makes anyone think that there's going to be any significant difference between two carriers when they're both bound to force me to purchase coverage riders for benefits I don't need? What, just MY carrier will offer my coverage for nearly $10K but some other carrier will be able to do it for $4K? Not likely. The premium that was mentioned is what the ACA's own calculator spits out as a likely cost. Given that the government is spinning the everloving shit out of ridiculously narrow use cases that make this turd like a good thing, even that calculator is telling me to prepare to get ass-fucked.

Whenever I think about this whole situation, I'm always reminded of the asshole-in-chief's prophetic promise: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan". Um...nope, obviously I can't. We don't need all the extra tacked on crap we don't and in some cases, physically can't use. But even if that lie were magically turned true and I could keep the coverage I have today, gee, it's only going to effing double in cost.

So, sure, I can keep it...if I don't mind getting gouged for it.

[jon.kiparsky]

I'm thinking your current carrier may be misrepresenting the facts in order to get you to buy insurance you don't need.

Shocking, but there are people who would do that sort of thing.

[supersloth]

what did they actually quote you for the premium increase in july of 2014? just curious, you left that out and just said 'way more'

edit: unless that was the third paragraph. i confused current rate/rate moving to before aca/rate after aca.

This post has been edited by supersloth: 30 September 2013 - 10:35 AM

[lordofduct]

You should also consider the tax credits you should be receiving as well. I don't know what you bring in, but with a family of 4, and if you use the exchange, you should be able to get tax credits to lower your effective premium.

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 30 September 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Well, I'm not going to speculate, I'm going to make clear: this new law will buttfuck my family (and most of the people I know). I'm self-employed and buy my family's health insurance privately. Our premium for a family of 4 is $388/mo. Our carrier sent us a letter the other day offering to convert our policy to a new policy to extend us for a further 4 months at a new monthly premium of about $440. Same coverage, same everything...just with a new inception date so it can last for 12 months. Called them this morning to ask why I would voluntarily accept a $50+ bump in monthly premiums when my coverage is exactly the same and they told me that when my policy expires in July of 2014, the premium increase will be way more than that due to the provisions of the ACA.

In our case, the ACA will force us to purchase prenatal care coverage, ob-gyn coverage, addiction treatment riders, and a host of other mandatory new benefits we don't need and won't use. I mention the three above because of them all, they're the most ridiculous. My wife had a hysterectomy 11 years ago...but we're getting the full blown prenatal and ob-gyn benefits options because we don't have the choice to refuse them. We're not addicts either so all the addiction treatment benefits aren't a necessity either (I honestly don't plan to start shooting heroin anytime soon either).

Anyway, as it turns out, my carrier apparently used the subsidy calculator as well because they quoted me likely premium amounts for 2014 renewal. In my case, our premium will more than double what I'm paying right now for coverage (keeping to the copay and deductibles I've chosen for our private coverage). We'll go from a premium of around $4600/yr to one that is estimated to nearly $9800/yr. And before anyone spits out the patently asinine claim that this is due to normal medical inflation, my annual premium for the same coverage rose $252/yr last year, and that was on top of a rise of $240/year from the year before.

In other words, we'll be going from normal year over year premium increases in the 10% range per year to over 100%.

No way in hell this isn't due to the ACA. My family of 4 is going to get legally robbed of just short of $5K next year...all due to this horseshit...with absolutely zero benefit to us. Worst fucking legislation in the history of this country.

O.K. This is exactly why you have to take arguments from personal experience with a grain of salt.

In order for a family of four to receive a subsidy, your income must be no higher than 400% of poverty level, or $94,200 for a family of four. If you receive even $.01 in subsidies, your premium costs can never be more than 9.5% of your annual income. The $9,880 you wrote is > than 9.5% of the maximum you can earn and still receive subsidies, $94,199.............................................just saying.

lordofduct, on 30 September 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

You should also consider the tax credits you should be receiving as well. I don't know what you bring in, but with a family of 4, and if you use the exchange, you should be able to get tax credits to lower your effective premium.

The insured will also receive rebate checks from their insurers when said insurer does not manage to spend 80% of premiums on care. They only spend 70% of your premium on care, you get 10% back.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 30 September 2013 - 11:23 AM