Randal: Ignore the trolls... I followed your recommendation and it worked for
me. Thanks for sharing. The ACA required some ugly concessions to politically
powerful drug and insurance companies and healthcare providers but millions of
uninsured, underinsured and overcharged people will benefit. And, yes, we all
need to share the cost inline with our capabilities.
A message to liberals:Your beloved Obamacare website is broke.A government agency was tasked to create it.And a PRIVATE
civilian found the fix.Still have confidence that the federal
GOVERNMENT can effectively run this program?Do you see the parallels
there? Indeed, how can you not?.....
Now I'll laugh when he finds out his identity was stolen. LOL
You're all missing the bigger issue here!The guy is barefoot,
wearing a suit jacket.Somehow I think it would be easier to build a
time machine, go back to 1995, find a fax machine and then fax in my application
@ RedshirtI read the article. As I read it, those mandates are there
to set a threshold, so when people get health insurance, it covers a set number
of services at a minimum. You can argue what those should be, but that is
intent. And the article states the mandates 'cost' 20 to 50 percent.
So your $4000 could just as well be $6400. But the implication that mandates
cost, but don't provide value is false. Services are available for that
increased cost. And I have no problem with insurance companies making a
reasonable profit. The government has an inportant role to play. They may not do
it perfectly, but then again health insurance companioes aren't perfect
To "PTM" you also should realize that up to 50% of the cost of insurance
is compliance with the mandates that come from government.Lets look
at it this way. If it wasn't for government, the $8000/yr that a basic
insurance policy costs right now, would cost $4000. Read "Email
inShare.0The Cost of Health Insurance Mandates in Washington" at Washington
Policy Center.How do you expect insurance companies to offer a
cheaper product when the cost to comply with the mandates drives a significant
portion of the cost?
First we demonized it. Then we challenged it, with vengeance. It was
deemed sound, so we needed to starve it. But it wouldn’t die and we
finally had to strangle it -- by shutting down the government. It's
till around, tattered and limping. And it's not working smoothly. Well there you have it: Proof positive it’s not any good.
@RedshirtMIT'Another 57% qualified for state and federal
insurance programs'. My comment was not primarily directed at those who
chose not to purchase insurance (although that has an important impact), but at
the private sector's ability to offer an affordable product to all
Americans. The idea that a private company can provide affordable health
insurance in a free market is not true. And by your numbers 57% of the uninsured
couldn't afford private insurance. Either the state or federal government
had to intervene. And in truth the most important ACA intervention is the one
that requires most all to participate. Either that or let people die in the ER
because they don't have insurance.
It's good that many insurance premiums are less under Obamacare, but I
don't understand how the government can make up the difference of the
premiums. The government does not have any way to make money - they don't
have any money except for the taxes the citizens pay.I also heard
that millions of dollars was paid to Canadians to write the program for this
health care program. I thought Silicone valley in Northern Calif. had the best
and most experienced programers. Wouldn't it be better to keep money here
in the USA so our people would have more jobs and pay more taxes here?
Irony GuyWhat blessings does a poor person get for giving %10 of
their already meager wages to an already rich corporation - other then having
%10 less money. Be specific.
There is no way we could afford to pay $720 a month for medical insurance! I
only hope my husband's insurance at work doesn't increase a lot. I am
66 and would love to retire. My husband is 60 and has some health issues, but
neither of us can think of retirement for several more years.
It is a sad day in this country when it becomes news worthy for someone to
actually navigate a mandatory government website which nearly all others have
failed to do. We have been promised for the past several years on how much
brighter and happier our lives would be because of the ACA -- and all those who
worried that it wasn't all that it was promised to be have been condoned
and laughed at. And now, it seems to be real news that someone has actually be
able to wade through the mess. I fear this may be rare news in deed.
To "PTM" actually, of the 43 million uninsured about 38% could afford
insurance, but choose not to buy it. Another 57% qualified for state and
federal insurance programs but chose not to sign up. So in reality on 5% or 2.5
million couldn't afford it. That is less than 1% of the nation. That
means that between government programs and private insurance 99% of the people
could have been covered if they wanted to be.
@ Chicken hawk....My reply to your question was filtered by D.N...Go figure!
Obama to Ogden Man ... "You didn't find that"
Please do not equate tithing with ANY other system of financing. On its face,
tithing looks terribly regressive, as 10 percent of a poor person's income
counts a lot more to him than 10 percent of a rich person's income does to
the rich person. But people forget the blessings that come from the principle of
the "widow's mite." The poor man who gives more also gets more
blessings. I believe that because I have experienced it. IOW, tithing is NO
argument for a flat tax. God and the government do not have the same
Inexpensive dental insurance and maternity riders would be available had the
Democrat congress allowed input from the other side of the aisle. The GOP plan
called for purchases across state lines, allowing buyers to tailor their
coverage to their specific needs. If this gentleman has four children in
ten years, he's paying $9,000 per delivery and he gets a smaller selection
of doctors. I'm sure his selection is already diminished and the future
will see more and more doctors dropping out of practice. How much is that worth?
I understand his move to shift the future cost of a deductible to a monthly
premium. That is smart consumership. The only problem is that if he can afford
$720 a month, then I suspect he could have found basic maternity coverage
without the need for government subsidies and credits. Millions of people have
made it happen before.Through the subsidies and credits offered
through the healthcare exchanges, we as taxpayers are now paying for his hope of
having a child in 2014. This is irresponsible governance. It is not the
taxpayers job to make him feel better if his wife happens to get pregnant. Why
not save the $720 premium each month (that he clearly is able to pay NOW) in a
short term bank CD and use it if he needs it? That way he keeps it in his
control A healthy child can be delivered for approximately $7,000 to $8,000 out
of pocket. If he is worried he could buy a cheap catastrophic health plan to
cover themselves.People refuse to be smart healthcare consumers.
Yes, I want the ACA to fail. The sooner it does, the quicker meaningful
healthcare reform happens.
slcjimmy: What does math have to do with green eggs and ham. A baby can be paid
for by the savings, I've done it.
I love all the comments that are presented as fact. Most of us have no real
clue what the impact will be. Complain in a year when the reality of the law
becomes known.It would be nice if the DNEWs edited these comments
for 'facts' not just 'hate, etc...'
The ACA website was rigged so no one could get on. Look at how easy it was for
this guy to figure it out. He found out that he has to pay almost double which
just happened to work out for him but the rest of America is going to go nuts,
just in time before the next shut down occurs so Americans will see the truth
and fix it.
Reasonable Person, the baby would be paid for with the savings. Any emergency
that occurs during the delivery would be covered by their normal health
insurance. Why not put that money away yourself and save a ton of money.
@ Reasonable Person....Chickenhawk (Really?) misses more then just the part
concerning maternity coverage. (Hanitty didn't go over this in last
night's show!) Green Eggs & ham anyone?
Chickenhawk: you missed the part about now having maternity coverage.
I don't get his reasoning for liking the new insurance. His premium
increased by 300 per month. His annual premium went from 5040 per year to 8640
per year. He is paying 3600 more per year for his plan. I don't get it!
That is 36,000 over 10 years folks! WHAT A DEAL THIS IS!!!!! Go Crazy Barry the
If something seems too good to be true...Someone is going to pay more.
Period.You can't absorb the uninsured and the cost of preexisting
condition and the cost of lifetime caps...and expect it to cost LESS.Insurance companies have been doing managed care for decades now, paying flat
rates, asking questions about the necessity of procedures, requiring second
opinions and tracking down fraud for 30 years. Do you really think the federal
government can do a better job at streamlining?Something's gotta
give. The middle class will take the brunt of the burden.Anyone who thinks
ACA is going to do all it promises and not cost us more money is simply
out-of-touch with reality. The introductory offers will go up to pay the cost of
care.And care will be harder to get with millions more using the medical
infrastructure in the USA.
I was listening to a good friend give a talk in Church this past Sunday. The
topic was tithing. He is a CPA and mentioned in his talk that he has had
opportunity to review the US tax code. He said it was voluminous and hard to
understand. He then compared that to the law of tithing and contrasted the
differences. I then thought how successful and prosperous the church has been
under the law of tithing. I mentioned that thought to my friend after the
meeting was over. He thought for a moment and said "Yes, I think one of the
biggest differences is that tithe payers have ownership." Hmm...I agree and have seen that "ownership" in my life and in the lives of
others. When individuals and familys have ownership in an organization they and
the organization they are associated with tend to perform much better. Any program designed to dole goods and services without providing
opportunities for ownership will not be effective in reaching its goals. I do
not expect the ACA to provide any of the benefits that were stated as selling
Oops, correction to the last sentence in my post.If they did the ACA
would not have come into existence.
@DanteThe private sector hasn't been able to provide coverage
for all 350 million of us. A large segment of the 43 million are without
coverage because they can't afford the price. So much for right pricing.
Another segment are excluded because of existing conditions, that's
reducing the company's risk and your premiums. And the other segment are
the 'I don't need health insurance, oops until I need it'
segment. Two out of three are on the insurance companies. So no, the private
sector doesn't have a product that is affordable and available to all. If
they did the ACA would have come into existence.
Many Americans hope that Obamacare succeeds more than the devastating socialized
medicine programs in Europe and Canada. They blissfully trust that somehow
Obamacare will ultimately bring down the total cost of healthcare, despite the
fact that no government-managed program of any kind--certainly not health
care--has ever proved more efficient or reduced costs vis-a-vis the private
sector. So long as they individually get help from Uncle Sugar with their
medical needs, they have no concern that the country as a whole goes bankrupt
into the dustbin of history.
The headline sets readers up for the usual nail the ACA ect., ect., ect..Scanning the piece readers find..."...Bennett said
before signing up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, he was
paying a $420 monthly premium with a $2,000 annual deductible. Now he’ll
be paying a $720 premium and a $500 deductible, but his family also will be
getting maternity and dental coverage — something the Bennetts
couldn't get before...".Ok...so it is a nail the ACA...but,
wait..."...his family also will be getting maternity and dental
coverage-something the Bennetts couldn't get before...".This is beginning to read like a nail the ACA piece gone bad...“...The process to even get insurance before was so difficult that
surprisingly, even with all the bugs, I still find HealthCare.gov more
simple,” Bennett said. “So for us this is a huge win, because
we’re paying what we think is fair. And yes it’s more than before,
but we actually have coverage that we like now...”.Not
good...not good at all...Demonizing the ACA has been so much
fun...Why report a success story?
Wow health care costs are lower. Only 300 dollrs more a month. My daughters went
from 400 to 1200 per month uncle Barry just wants to help us. With friends like
Apparently Randall doesn't understand that under ObamaCare he will spend an
additional $3600 in annual ObamaCare "taxes" (monthly premium increased
by $300) in order to save $1500 in annual healthcare deductible. So his net
healthcare spending will rise by $2100. Those numbers don't add up very
well. I prefer to keep my old healthcare coverage.
There are several states like Washington where you can sign up through their own
website. Ours is Washington State.gov. I had no problem applying and signing
up. I look forward to getting help with my medical needs.
"I sincerely hope that this does not get back to HHS.Obama Care needs
to fail on every front."Gee. And I would have thought that the
best outcome would be for the ACA to succeed.Silly me.What is really sad is that people would rather it fail so they can score
political points. Shouldn't we all hope that it succeeds and
ultimately brings down the total cost?(and no, you, me or the
experts are not smart enough to know the answer to that yet)
Atl,That is a good question. I would also like to know how everything else
that was promised about this new program has been a bold faced lie.
I sincerely hope that this does not get back to HHS.Obama Care needs to
fail on every front.
@Vegas POW"For those who care, health care premium raised from $5040
to $8140."Considering the legal limits to how much premiums can
be as a percentage of income, I'd love to know how you could possibly have
an income high enough for the Obamacare percentage to come to that... while
simultaneously not having employer health insurance.
This Chrome incognito trick doesn't work.I get an error at
security question prompts and still can't create a login after two weeks of
trying.And yes affordable health care mean more expensive premiums.
My work insurance is going up by almost double.
For those who care, health care premium raised from $5040 to $8140. Cost of
healthcare + deductible is raised from $7040 to $9140.
The web site is not the problem. The problem is the law itself and its
unintended consequences of raising medical insurance costs for ordinary people
who have worked hard and played by the rules. And if you're still
advocating for single-payer health care from this government, remember that
managing health care for 317 million Americans is at least 100 times harder than
building a web site. After this disaster, I wouldn't trust the government
to build a page on Facebook with kitten photos.
"...if you log in using a special kind of Web browser in a special
mode..." and Jupiter is aligned with Mars, and you hold the 'rabbit
ears' on top of the T.V. with one hand and hold a screw driver in the
other...Wow. What a system. You have to 'Jail Break' the
Health Care website to get signed up. I wonder what loop hole one can use to
get out of this law completely.