Options

A God Damned Separate Thread For Your Argument About Obamacare

15758606263114

Posts

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Also is among the worst human beings in the entire Congress.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    XixXix Miami/LosAngeles/MoscowRegistered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Why the fuck didn't they use Amazon Web Services for Obamacare?

    It even has HIPAA compliance.

    Xix on
  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I can kind of imagine how that would play out.
    Dear Mr. X,

    It was very unfortunate to hear about your difficulties with the Healthcare Exchange signup online.

    But what did you expect? Obamacare Sucks.

    Sincerely, Your Senator,

    S. Chambliss.

    And I wouldn't really be able to refute him. "But it worked for some guys I know on the internet!"

  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Xix wrote: »
    Why the fuck didn't they use Amazon Web Services for Obamacare?

    It even has HIPAA compliance.

    It's not a scalability issue, as has been pointed out in the thread about a hojillion times.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Can anyone tell me how the mandate and eligibility rules apply to my situation? I just started a new job and declined to enroll in any of their insurance plans (health, vision, dental) because I'm still on my parents' insurance until I turn 26 (and because the new job isn't paying any of the premiums, so it would be $300-400 a month for me). They say the next enrollment period is next November, but I turn 26 in July.

    So do I get booted off my parents' insurance on my birthday, or does it continue to run through the end of the year? If I don't have insurance between July and November, do I have to pay the mandate penalty? When would I have to apply for Obamacare if I wanted to do that after July?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    I would imagine you don't get booted off the insurance until the year term of the plan ends.

    As to whether you have to pay the penalty: (linked for huge)

    http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/requirement_flowchart_3.png

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    As far as I know, changes to your health insurance as far as eligibility occur at the start of each new year. So I believe that if you are covered under your parents' insurance on Jan 1, 2014, you will be covered until Dec 31, 2014.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Can anyone tell me how the mandate and eligibility rules apply to my situation? I just started a new job and declined to enroll in any of their insurance plans (health, vision, dental) because I'm still on my parents' insurance until I turn 26 (and because the new job isn't paying any of the premiums, so it would be $300-400 a month for me). They say the next enrollment period is next November, but I turn 26 in July.

    So do I get booted off my parents' insurance on my birthday, or does it continue to run through the end of the year? If I don't have insurance between July and November, do I have to pay the mandate penalty? When would I have to apply for Obamacare if I wanted to do that after July?

    Generally speaking, loss of insurance is considered a "qualifying event" which allows you to enroll mid-year in your employer's insurance plan.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Can anyone tell me how the mandate and eligibility rules apply to my situation? I just started a new job and declined to enroll in any of their insurance plans (health, vision, dental) because I'm still on my parents' insurance until I turn 26 (and because the new job isn't paying any of the premiums, so it would be $300-400 a month for me). They say the next enrollment period is next November, but I turn 26 in July.

    So do I get booted off my parents' insurance on my birthday, or does it continue to run through the end of the year? If I don't have insurance between July and November, do I have to pay the mandate penalty? When would I have to apply for Obamacare if I wanted to do that after July?

    Generally speaking, loss of insurance is considered a "qualifying event" which allows you to enroll mid-year in your employer's insurance plan.

    True, I just don't think turning 27 in the middle of the term will cause you to lose the coverage.

    I could be wrong, though.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Make sense. Thanks guys.

    At any rate it's clear I can ignore the issue at least until July, and by that point Obamacare will either already have been repealed, or will have ushered in the dystopian hellscape where health insurance will be the least of my worries.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Make sense. Thanks guys.

    At any rate it's clear I can ignore the issue at least until July, and by that point Obamacare will either already have been repealed, or will have ushered in the dystopian hellscape where health insurance will be the least of my worries.

    Or I'll still be waiting for identity verification.

    Hah, who am I kidding? "Or"?

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I was dropped from my dad's work plan at the end of the month of May due to no longer being under the age of 26 and thereby no longer eligible for the terms of coverage. This was also when I learned that Blue Cross was unwilling to insure me due to a pre-existing condition (being too skinny) and had the joy of scrambling to find a different company offering an individual plan for continuation of coverage without knowing why I was denied in the first place. Which was not fun.

    Things may be different for different employer plans, but you don't necessarily default to the end of the year.

  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    I was thinking about this thread the past few days and the anecdotes that people have been providing about themselves and people in their lives and interaction with the ACA.

    I think we've had probably a dozen or so people who have provided either firsthand accounts, or accounts of close personal friends that have benefited in significant ways from the ACA in this thread. A few forumers or their families / close friends with pre-existing conditions or prescription costs have had significant relief or been able to get coverage. Several forumers have provided firsthand accounts of how they have successfully purchased insurance at significant savings or don't have employer provided insurance and were finally able to get it for a decent price.

    We've had probably a dozen to twenty people who have mostly broken even or seen minor benefits from the ACA. Quite a few people would find it a wash to go to the exchanges, and several people found it's a wash because of the family coverage gap error in the way the law is written. That's at least four or five people who likely would have significant savings if that mistake in the law was corrected.

    We've got maybe a half dozen people who have encountered serious issues with the exchange websites themselves and haven't been able to enroll or get full information on what's available to them. A few reports were early on without later feedback, so I'd assume a few of those people's issues are resolved by now.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody in this thread has a firsthand / close family member or friend who is actually in a worse position. A few people saw their costs go up moderately, and I think one person had their employer lower the % of their contribution to meet the 80/20 standard. There were some links to the stories about people's insurance being dropped, but I don't think anyone in this thread has an account of someone losing their current plan AND not being able to purchase a complying plan that offers comparable coverage on the exchange.

    So...two months into the open enrollment period, and despite the two publicized problems (website and people's coverage being dropped) and the family coverage gap issue, it seems that Obamacare has been largely positive for the members of our forum community.

    zagdrob on
  • Options
    CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    The media is absolutely driving the narrative that things are going terribly, because "things are going ok" is bad for ratings.

  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    We've got maybe a half dozen people who have encountered serious issues with the exchange websites themselves and haven't been able to enroll or get full information on what's available to them. A few reports were early on without later feedback, so I'd assume a few of those people's issues are resolved by now.

    Or they gave up. I'd assume that--it's just as likely as "Resolved" if we're going to apply this to the general population and their familiarity/patience when dealing with computers, I'd be far more inclined to put them in the, "Fuck it, this is stupid" column.

  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    The media is absolutely driving the narrative that things are going terribly, because "things are going ok" is bad for ratings.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obamacare-policies-slam-smokers-could-backfire/
    Unlike drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese -- all of whom represent higher-than-average medical costs -- smokers are the only such group with a pre-existing condition that ObamaCare penalizes. It allows insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers for an identical policy, depending on the state and any subsidies the person might qualify for.

  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    Is your argument smokers shouldn't pay more or that we should also charge higher premiums to "drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese"?

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    So, I'm on a group health plan with IBX through my company, and my boss and other various old republicans in this office (yay engineers, we're the worst!) constantly rail about the ACA every day.

    They tell me a story wherein his premium is going to go up 10 thousand dollars total for next year and it's all due to the ACA allowing insurance companies to charge old people (he's 66) more money for insurance. it sounds like nonsense, but is there any kernal of truth? obvious prices go up because they always go up, but that's more of a 5-10% increase year over year, not a sudden 4 fold increase in premiums.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    If he's 66 why isn't he on Medicare?

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    So, I'm on a group health plan with IBX through my company, and my boss and other various old republicans in this office (yay engineers, we're the worst!) constantly rail about the ACA every day.

    They tell me a story wherein his premium is going to go up 10 thousand dollars total for next year and it's all due to the ACA allowing insurance companies to charge old people (he's 66) more money for insurance. it sounds like nonsense, but is there any kernal of truth? obvious prices go up because they always go up, but that's more of a 5-10% increase year over year, not a sudden 4 fold increase in premiums.

    Age banding is limited, but still permitted.

    I have no idea what the age band for 66+ would look like, but it would probably be pretty expensive. He should be on Medicare, and anyone in his age range would at most have a supplemental policy. I'd be interested in knowing what coverage he even has, because if it's something better than Medicare it's not going to be cheap at all.

  • Options
    CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    If he's 66 why isn't he on Medicare?

    Old republican? I'm going to guess because socialist death panels.

    Which is way worse than corporate death panels being allowed to drop you, because free market.

  • Options
    Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    So, I'm on a group health plan with IBX through my company, and my boss and other various old republicans in this office (yay engineers, we're the worst!) constantly rail about the ACA every day.

    They tell me a story wherein his premium is going to go up 10 thousand dollars total for next year and it's all due to the ACA allowing insurance companies to charge old people (he's 66) more money for insurance. it sounds like nonsense, but is there any kernal of truth? obvious prices go up because they always go up, but that's more of a 5-10% increase year over year, not a sudden 4 fold increase in premiums.

    Age banding is limited, but still permitted.

    I have no idea what the age band for 66+ would look like, but it would probably be pretty expensive. He should be on Medicare, and anyone in his age range would at most have a supplemental policy. I'd be interested in knowing what coverage he even has, because if it's something better than Medicare it's not going to be cheap at all.

    certainly, but wasn't it permitted before?

    and re: medicare i ain't got no idea, but our plan is a PPO from IBX, so it's like 160 a week before employer contribution for me, and i'm 26. so it's expensive.

    Knight_ on
    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Is your argument smokers shouldn't pay more or that we should also charge higher premiums to "drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese"?

    The first one. Nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition and the point of ACA is to offer affordable health insurance to everyone regardless of pre-existing condition. States can worry about regulating deadly habits after everyone is covered.

  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    So, I'm on a group health plan with IBX through my company, and my boss and other various old republicans in this office (yay engineers, we're the worst!) constantly rail about the ACA every day.

    They tell me a story wherein his premium is going to go up 10 thousand dollars total for next year and it's all due to the ACA allowing insurance companies to charge old people (he's 66) more money for insurance. it sounds like nonsense, but is there any kernal of truth? obvious prices go up because they always go up, but that's more of a 5-10% increase year over year, not a sudden 4 fold increase in premiums.

    Age banding is limited, but still permitted.

    I have no idea what the age band for 66+ would look like, but it would probably be pretty expensive. He should be on Medicare, and anyone in his age range would at most have a supplemental policy. I'd be interested in knowing what coverage he even has, because if it's something better than Medicare it's not going to be cheap at all.

    certainly, but wasn't it permitted before?

    and re: medicare i ain't got no idea, but our plan is a PPO from IBX, so it's like 160 a week before employer contribution for me, and i'm 26. so it's expensive.

    So, here's the Medigap plans that are available from IBX.

    ibxmedicare.com/pdfs/plan_finder/medigap_security/2013_outline_of_coverage.pdf

    If he falls into the 65-69 age group, the most expensive plan - Plan C - that would apply to him is $283.80 / month. That works out to $3405.60 / year.

    He's lying or doesn't understand what he's saying.

    Also, Blue Cross / Blue Shield is good insurance. If you're paying $600-700 a month for a 26 y/o individual, you should check out your local exchanges to see if there is a plan that offers adequate coverage in the same price range. Talk to your employer to see if you can recapture some of their contribution in your pay - probably not, but it can't hurt to ask.

  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Is your argument smokers shouldn't pay more or that we should also charge higher premiums to "drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese"?

    The first one. Nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition and the point of ACA is to offer affordable health insurance to everyone regardless of pre-existing condition. States can worry about regulating deadly habits after everyone is covered.

    i agree. If you want to punish smoking through social engineering, tax it.
    Don't roll it into health insurance.

  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    So, I'm on a group health plan with IBX through my company, and my boss and other various old republicans in this office (yay engineers, we're the worst!) constantly rail about the ACA every day.

    They tell me a story wherein his premium is going to go up 10 thousand dollars total for next year and it's all due to the ACA allowing insurance companies to charge old people (he's 66) more money for insurance. it sounds like nonsense, but is there any kernal of truth? obvious prices go up because they always go up, but that's more of a 5-10% increase year over year, not a sudden 4 fold increase in premiums.

    Age banding is limited, but still permitted.

    I have no idea what the age band for 66+ would look like, but it would probably be pretty expensive. He should be on Medicare, and anyone in his age range would at most have a supplemental policy. I'd be interested in knowing what coverage he even has, because if it's something better than Medicare it's not going to be cheap at all.

    certainly, but wasn't it permitted before?

    and re: medicare i ain't got no idea, but our plan is a PPO from IBX, so it's like 160 a week before employer contribution for me, and i'm 26. so it's expensive.

    It depends on your mostly on your state, but also on the size of your group. If your state allows age banding, 66 could be the begining or your carrier's "FUCK YOU, GO AWAY" age band.

  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Wait...$640 is your monthly premium with or without your employer contribution?

  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Is your argument smokers shouldn't pay more or that we should also charge higher premiums to "drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese"?

    The first one. Nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition and the point of ACA is to offer affordable health insurance to everyone regardless of pre-existing condition. States can worry about regulating deadly habits after everyone is covered.

    i agree. If you want to punish smoking through social engineering, tax it.
    Don't roll it into health insurance.

    I mostly agree. It would have been better not to charge smokers more, but instead levy a tax on sale of all tobacco products to make up the difference. Of course, without having this tobacco tax revenue paying into a general single payer fund makes it almost impossible to properly distribute. But yeah, taxing would be the better - and politically impossible - solution. Seems like we get that 'perfect vs. good' problem a lot, eh?

    I also understand the it's basically 'have you used tobacco in the past 12 months - Y / N', and 'are you currently using tobacco - Y / N'. There is a direct causal relationship between tobacco (even moderate use) and a number of medical issues, and IIRC, Tobacco Cessation coverage is one of the things that Obamacare mandated.

    Drug and alcohol use vs. addiction aren't nearly as easily determined, nor is the causal relationship between drug or alcohol usage and medical issues as well defined. Obesity is the same way. There's pretty much a universal consensus in the medical community that all tobacco use is bad / unhealthy, where drug, alcohol, and obesity are much more controversial.

    But I definitely agree that single payer which receives a substantial amount of 'sin' revenue would be far and away the best bet. Adjust 'sin' revenue based on the harm - taxes on soda, alcohol, motorcycles, etc... Of course, then you immediately have people screaming about social engineering and forcing you to eat broccoli and so on...

  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Of course, then you immediately have people screaming about social engineering and forcing you to eat broccoli and so on...

    ... well ... America is pretty fat these days ... and broccoli is good for you ...

  • Options
    Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2013
    Smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It is an activity that is bad for your health that can be stopped. Emphizima from smoking is a pre-existing condition, and the exchanges don't ask about that.

    Edit: yes, nicotine is adictive, but treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    ...and when you are done with that; take a folding
    chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    So, I'm on a group health plan with IBX through my company, and my boss and other various old republicans in this office (yay engineers, we're the worst!) constantly rail about the ACA every day.

    They tell me a story wherein his premium is going to go up 10 thousand dollars total for next year and it's all due to the ACA allowing insurance companies to charge old people (he's 66) more money for insurance. it sounds like nonsense, but is there any kernal of truth? obvious prices go up because they always go up, but that's more of a 5-10% increase year over year, not a sudden 4 fold increase in premiums.

    Age banding is limited, but still permitted.

    I have no idea what the age band for 66+ would look like, but it would probably be pretty expensive. He should be on Medicare, and anyone in his age range would at most have a supplemental policy. I'd be interested in knowing what coverage he even has, because if it's something better than Medicare it's not going to be cheap at all.

    certainly, but wasn't it permitted before?

    and re: medicare i ain't got no idea, but our plan is a PPO from IBX, so it's like 160 a week before employer contribution for me, and i'm 26. so it's expensive.

    So, here's the Medigap plans that are available from IBX.

    ibxmedicare.com/pdfs/plan_finder/medigap_security/2013_outline_of_coverage.pdf

    If he falls into the 65-69 age group, the most expensive plan - Plan C - that would apply to him is $283.80 / month. That works out to $3405.60 / year.

    He's lying or doesn't understand what he's saying.

    Also, Blue Cross / Blue Shield is good insurance. If you're paying $600-700 a month for a 26 y/o individual, you should check out your local exchanges to see if there is a plan that offers adequate coverage in the same price range. Talk to your employer to see if you can recapture some of their contribution in your pay - probably not, but it can't hurt to ask.
    Or you're a single income family in which case hurray - fuck you!

    I also find every single response which centers on '...then use the exchanges to...' utterly hilarious. You might as well say '...then call Miss Cleo and ask her to check her crystal ball...' for all the good the exchanges will do you.

  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    I don't think anyone here would make the argument that $600-$700 for family coverage is excessive.

    That would be a hell of a deal in a lot of cases.

    Sorry the exchange isn't working for you, that really sucks, but it's working for more and more people as time goes on and discounting it completely is pretty bad advice.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It is an activity that is bad for your health that can be stopped. Emphizima from smoking is a pre-existing condition, and the exchanges don't ask about that.

    Edit: yes, nicotine is adictive, but treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized.

    nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition and a legitimate medical concern.

    And just because "treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized" doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't cover it or that insurance should social engineer the premiums for it.

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It is an activity that is bad for your health that can be stopped. Emphizima from smoking is a pre-existing condition, and the exchanges don't ask about that.

    Edit: yes, nicotine is adictive, but treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized.

    nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition.

    I am curious about this line of logic. Is any other addiction treated as a preexisting condition in the ACA.

  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It is an activity that is bad for your health that can be stopped. Emphizima from smoking is a pre-existing condition, and the exchanges don't ask about that.

    Edit: yes, nicotine is adictive, but treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized.

    nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition.

    I am curious about this line of logic. Is any other addiction treated as a preexisting condition in the ACA.

    but cigarettes are gross

    and vilifying smokers is politically viable

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    edited November 2013
    SCOTUS will take up the case representing the infantile cause of Catholic employers having the ability to deny non-Catholic employees birth control, because of course it will.

    Absalon on
  • Options
    jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It is an activity that is bad for your health that can be stopped. Emphizima from smoking is a pre-existing condition, and the exchanges don't ask about that.

    Edit: yes, nicotine is adictive, but treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized.

    nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition.

    I am curious about this line of logic. Is any other addiction treated as a preexisting condition in the ACA.

    but cigarettes are gross

    and vilifying smokers is politically viable

    As a former two pack a day smoker, trust me I know. However, the question stands.

  • Options
    CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    So, I'm on a group health plan with IBX through my company, and my boss and other various old republicans in this office (yay engineers, we're the worst!) constantly rail about the ACA every day.

    They tell me a story wherein his premium is going to go up 10 thousand dollars total for next year and it's all due to the ACA allowing insurance companies to charge old people (he's 66) more money for insurance. it sounds like nonsense, but is there any kernal of truth? obvious prices go up because they always go up, but that's more of a 5-10% increase year over year, not a sudden 4 fold increase in premiums.

    Age banding is limited, but still permitted.

    I have no idea what the age band for 66+ would look like, but it would probably be pretty expensive. He should be on Medicare, and anyone in his age range would at most have a supplemental policy. I'd be interested in knowing what coverage he even has, because if it's something better than Medicare it's not going to be cheap at all.

    certainly, but wasn't it permitted before?

    and re: medicare i ain't got no idea, but our plan is a PPO from IBX, so it's like 160 a week before employer contribution for me, and i'm 26. so it's expensive.

    So, here's the Medigap plans that are available from IBX.

    ibxmedicare.com/pdfs/plan_finder/medigap_security/2013_outline_of_coverage.pdf

    If he falls into the 65-69 age group, the most expensive plan - Plan C - that would apply to him is $283.80 / month. That works out to $3405.60 / year.

    He's lying or doesn't understand what he's saying.

    Also, Blue Cross / Blue Shield is good insurance. If you're paying $600-700 a month for a 26 y/o individual, you should check out your local exchanges to see if there is a plan that offers adequate coverage in the same price range. Talk to your employer to see if you can recapture some of their contribution in your pay - probably not, but it can't hurt to ask.
    Or you're a single income family in which case hurray - fuck you!

    If you are a single income family, you almost certainly qualify for subsidies that will keep the cost well below that point. And if you make enough money not to qualify for them, 6-700/mo isn't a big deal for full family coverage. Stop being goosey.

  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It is an activity that is bad for your health that can be stopped. Emphizima from smoking is a pre-existing condition, and the exchanges don't ask about that.

    Edit: yes, nicotine is adictive, but treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized.

    nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition.

    I am curious about this line of logic. Is any other addiction treated as a preexisting condition in the ACA.

    but cigarettes are gross

    and vilifying smokers is politically viable

    As a former two pack a day smoker, trust me I know. However, the question stands.

    no, that really is the answer

    it's okay to demonize smoking

    it's not okay to demonize other types of addiction in the same way

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It is an activity that is bad for your health that can be stopped. Emphizima from smoking is a pre-existing condition, and the exchanges don't ask about that.

    Edit: yes, nicotine is adictive, but treatment resouces are out there and highly publicized.

    nicotine addiction is a pre-existing condition.

    I am curious about this line of logic. Is any other addiction treated as a preexisting condition in the ACA.

    I was aping what Emnememenem was saying. It isn't necessarily a pre-existing condition, but it is most certainly a diagnosible medical condition and shouldn't be treated any different than any other.

    I mean, heroin addicts are pretty high risk for additional medical concerns, should we charge them a premium for health insurance? What about fatties? There are plenty of "treatment resources" publicized to fatties. Should we charge them more?

Sign In or Register to comment.