Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 11:22 am
I am currently a young single male working full time. With my current situation I make roughly $20,500 a year. I am a recent college graduate and have always been pretty self reliant. I have never and will never receive any government handouts that I did not earn. I currently pay $92 a month for Health Insurance through a private insurer. I looked up what would change to my plan when the Affordable Care Act goes into effect and through the marketplace for the exact same plan I currently have I will be paying $171 a month. The coverage is exactly the same and the rates just increased by almost %100. I cannot afford to spend %10 of my income on the same insurance I spend %5 of my income on. I am just curious as to if there are any ways to keep my rates the same and continue to pay what I currently do. Again I want nothing to do with government assistance. Why have my rates increased for the same coverage? Money is extremely tight right now and I just can't imagine who this new plan might be helping. It would be alot easier for me to not work and get everything covered by the government. I am very confused by all of this. Any information would be appreciated.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 12 • Views: 3,793 • Replies: 29

 
Butrflynet
 
  5  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 11:50 am
@footballman,
Why would you need to apply for the "exact same plan" if you already have it?

If you are happy with what you already have, keep it.
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 12:04 pm
@Butrflynet,
I can't top what Butrflynet has said here already. The Affordable Care Act doesn't apply to those who already have health care insurance. It's for those people (like myself) who don't have it already.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 12:21 pm
@footballman,
Ball I commiserate most wholeheartedly on the basis that modern life is becoming far too complicated with the likes of Obamacare. However, it's a step in the right direction, a universal system ("socialized medicine") where decisions of the sort you're faced with become unnecessary
Butrflynet
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 12:31 pm
@dalehileman,
The only complications are the people and corporations trying to block it before it has a chance to take effect.

Those of us who have been shut out of the health insurance arena for years, are grateful that we finally have a chance to pay for a health insurance policy and get the medical care we need.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 01:01 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
The only complications are the people and corporations trying to block it before it has a chance to take effect.
Unfamiliar with its detail myself I can't make such comparison, but from what I've heard so far, aside from its detractors the measure itself is vastly complex

Quote:
Those of us who have been shut out of the health insurance arena for years, are grateful…..
Don't misunderstand; I'd agree ObC is a form of progress. Sometimes "temporary" measures of this kind help buttress the realization, eventually leading to a simpler but more encompassing approach

If the arch cons, eg your Ann Coulter, had reigned for instance, your entitlement to a visit by the fire department might depend upon your job, its salary, the kind of structure involved, the distance between it and your garage, its proximity to vegetation, how many children you have, whether your kitchen stove is gas or electric, the number of letters in your mother's maiden name…...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 09:23 pm
@Butrflynet,
Some of the folks in my area (Seattle) have been notified by their insurers that their current plans would no longer be in effect. The would have to change plans. 100% increase sounds like what I have been hearing.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 02:05 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:
Why would you need to apply for the "exact same plan" if you already have it?
If you are happy with what you already have, keep it.

He might not have a choice. The Affordable Care Act is forcing a lot of people to leave the plans they currently have now.

Those people will have to sign up on the health exchanges if they wish to keep getting insurance.

Unless they are too poor. If someone is poor enough, the Affordable Care Act makes it illegal for them to buy health insurance. The only way they can get insurance is through Medicaid.

And of course, getting Medicaid means that the government seizes all your property after you die. So the Affordable Care Act really means that some people who were previously happy with their insurance plans, now find that the only way they can continue to have health insurance is by signing all their possessions over to the government when they die.

In any case, getting back to the issue raised by the poster, perhaps even if he stays on his existing plan he is still hit by that rate increase.

Or perhaps he is one of the many people who had their existing plans ended by the Affordable Care Act, and he is on the exchange because that is the only way he can continue to get insurance.

Either way, at least he is lucky enough to not be one of the ones who now find they can only have health insurance if they sign their possessions over to the government when they die.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 02:08 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
The Affordable Care Act doesn't apply to those who already have health care insurance.

Sure it does. A number of people who have health insurance have had their insurance plans ended by the Affordable Care Act.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 02:11 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
Some of the folks in my area (Seattle) have been notified by their insurers that their current plans would no longer be in effect. The would have to change plans. 100% increase sounds like what I have been hearing.

Wait 'til some of them find out that they can now only get health insurance if they join Medicaid and let the government seize all their possessions after they die.
0 Replies
 
Peter Frouman
 
  6  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 03:07 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

If someone is poor enough, the Affordable Care Act makes it illegal for them to buy health insurance.

Where are you getting your information?

This is complete BS. There is no law in any jurisdiction in the United States that makes it illegal for a poor person to buy insurance.

oralloy wrote:

So the Affordable Care Act really means that some people who were previously happy with their insurance plans, now find that the only way they can continue to have health insurance is by signing all their possessions over to the government when they die.


This is also BS and complete nonsense. Some people do use strategies to reduce their assets to qualify for Medicaid but this never involves "signing all their possessions over to the government when they die."
roger
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 03:27 pm
@Peter Frouman,
Thanks for the straight information, Peter. All the better since you go with factual information without the political overtones.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 03:39 pm
@Peter Frouman,
Peter Frouman wrote:
Where are you getting your information?
This is complete BS. There is no law in any jurisdiction in the United States that makes it illegal for a poor person to buy insurance.

The ObamaCare website will not let you shop for insurance unless you provide accurate information about your finances. And the website actually checks with the IRS in realtime to make sure you are telling the truth. That is one of the parts of the system that has been having technical difficulties the past few days.

Anyone who is "too poor" gets forced to the Medicaid signup page, and is not allowed to buy from the individual exchange even if they want to (say if they want their children to inherit the family home one day).


Peter Frouman wrote:
This is also BS and complete nonsense. Some people do use strategies to reduce their assets to qualify for Medicaid but this never involves "signing all their possessions over to the government when they die."

No, if you sign up for Medicaid, the government takes all your assets when you die.

The lower middle class in America is about to be completely wiped out thanks to ObamaCare. Except of course for those who refuse to sign up, and choose to just go without any insurance.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 03:42 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Thanks for the straight information, Peter. All the better since you go with factual information without the political overtones.

You mean people who are "too poor" are not forced to the Medicaid sign up page, and are allowed to buy from the individual exchange if they wish??
0 Replies
 
Peter Frouman
 
  5  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 05:16 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Peter Frouman wrote:
Where are you getting your information?
This is complete BS. There is no law in any jurisdiction in the United States that makes it illegal for a poor person to buy insurance.

Anyone who is "too poor" gets forced to the Medicaid signup page, and is not allowed to buy from the individual exchange even if they want to

Please explain how a website redirect to a Medicaid signup page can possibly be interpreted to mean that it is illegal for a poor person to buy health insurance. I'm fairly certain anyone can buy insurance on the exchange but even if that were not the case, the exchange is not the only place to buy health care insurance and not being able to buy insurance there does not mean it is illegal to buy insurance elsewhere.

oralloy wrote:

Peter Frouman wrote:
This is also BS and complete nonsense. Some people do use strategies to reduce their assets to qualify for Medicaid but this never involves "signing all their possessions over to the government when they die."

No, if you sign up for Medicaid, the government takes all your assets when you die.


Again, that is complete BS and has no basis in fact. The closest possible scenario to that would be people who purchase an annuity to reduce their assets to qualify for Medicaid long term care benefits and are required, in some cases, to make the state the remainder beneficiary of the annuity. See http://www.dshs.wa.gov/manuals/eaz/sections/medicaltrust/Tales_C_annuities.shtml for details on how this works in the state of Washington. This is not in any way equivalent to "signing all their possessions over to the government when they die."
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 06:17 pm
@Peter Frouman,
Peter Frouman wrote:
Please explain how a website redirect to a Medicaid signup page can possibly be interpreted to mean that it is illegal for a poor person to buy health insurance.

The ObamaCare website is now the only place where an individual can buy health insurance.

If the website refuses to let them buy health insurance, then they don't get to buy health insurance.


Peter Frouman wrote:
I'm fairly certain anyone can buy insurance on the exchange

I'm sure your certainty will be a great comfort to all those who are no longer permitted to buy health insurance because they are "too poor".


Peter Frouman wrote:
but even if that were not the case, the exchange is not the only place to buy health care insurance and not being able to buy insurance there does not mean it is illegal to buy insurance elsewhere.

Where are these mythical "other places" where someone can buy insurance?

Are you referring to all the individual insurance plans that have just been abolished by ObamaCare?

Plans that no longer exist are a very poor source of practical health insurance.


Peter Frouman wrote:
Again, that is complete BS and has no basis in fact.

Somehow I doubt that "you telling them it isn't really happening" will be much comfort to people who are having their family homes seized.


Peter Frouman wrote:
The closest possible scenario to that would be people who purchase an annuity to reduce their assets to qualify for Medicaid long term care benefits and are required, in some cases, to make the state the remainder beneficiary of the annuity.

There is a closer scenario than that. There is for instance this scenario:

"Every time someone on Medicaid dies, the state seizes all their assets."


Peter Frouman wrote:
This is not in any way equivalent to "signing all their possessions over to the government when they die."

It is true that the scenario you gave had little to do with the state seizing people's assets when they die.

But the fact remains, if people sign up for Medicaid, the state seizes all their assets when they die.
Peter Frouman
 
  5  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 07:34 pm
@oralloy,
It's a shame there is so much misinformation being spread about the Affordable Care Act (ACA). There are so many valid and rational reasons (based on established facts) to oppose it that it is completely unnecessary and counter-productive to oppose it based on misinformation and complete nonsense. A lot of this misinformation is being spread by groups like Americans for Prosperity (funded with millions of dollars from the Koch brothers). They are just making stuff up which completely undermines their credibility and makes it less likely they will succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but it is not factual.

As I previously stated, the insurance exchange marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act are not the only place where individuals can obtain healthcare insurance policies. When the ACA takes effect in January 2014, there will be about 250 million Americans with health insurance policies not purchased through the federal or state exchanges. It is and it will continue to be possible to purchase health care insurance outside the exchanges.

The law does allow Medicaid to recover expenses it has paid from the person's estate. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/estaterec.htm
Your statement that "[e]very time someone on Medicaid dies, the state seizes all their assets" is simply not true.

What is the problem with Medicaid recovering money it has spent on care from an estate? If the estate has or will have enough funds to repay those costs after its other debts have been paid, why shouldn't the government try to recover all or part of what it has spent on care for the deceased individual and thus reduce the burden to the taxpayers? I find it very odd that some Republicans are so strongly opposed to requiring individuals (who have the means) to actually pay for the services they use. It seems that when they oppose the ACA, they suddenly become some sort of Communists or Socialists who think the government and the taxpayers should pay for everything and no one should have any individual responsibility for anything.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 07:55 pm
@Peter Frouman,
You need to pay more attention to whom your are conversing with.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2013 09:00 pm
@Peter Frouman,
Peter Frouman wrote:
I'm not sure where you are getting your information but it is not factual.

I see below that you have gone from denying that the government seizes the assets of people on Medicaid when they die, to justifying it.


Peter Frouman wrote:
As I previously stated, the insurance exchange marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act are not the only place where individuals can obtain healthcare insurance policies. When the ACA takes effect in January 2014, there will be about 250 million Americans with health insurance policies not purchased through the federal or state exchanges. It is and it will continue to be possible to purchase health care insurance outside the exchanges.

Where is this supposed "other source" of health insurance for individuals?


Peter Frouman wrote:
The law does allow Medicaid to recover expenses it has paid from the person's estate. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/estaterec.htm
Your statement that "[e]very time someone on Medicaid dies, the state seizes all their assets" is simply not true.

If a person's assets are greater than what the state has paid out, then yes. The state will only take their assets up to what the state paid out.

But as a practical matter, the state will almost always have paid out more than the sum of a person's assets.


Peter Frouman wrote:
What is the problem with Medicaid recovering money it has spent on care from an estate? If the estate has or will have enough funds to repay those costs after its other debts have been paid, why shouldn't the government try to recover all or part of what it has spent on care for the deceased individual and thus reduce the burden to the taxpayers?

Well, if going on Medicaid were voluntary, the only thing wrong with this would be that it is a totally sucky thing to do.

Offering assistance to the poor, but making that assistance conditional on seizing possession of their family home, is something that might appeal to Ebenezer Scrooge (pre-ghosts).

However, the problem now goes beyond the mere fact that people on Medicaid lose all their assets when they die, because now ObamaCare is forcing poor people to sign up for Medicaid, even if they'd prefer to pay for their own insurance so they can let their children inherit the family home.


Peter Frouman wrote:
I find it very odd that some Republicans are so strongly opposed to requiring individuals (who have the means) to actually pay for the services they use. It seems that when they oppose the ACA, they suddenly become some sort of Communists or Socialists who think the government and the taxpayers should pay for everything and no one should have any individual responsibility for anything.

What Republicans are these?

Anyway, no. The people who act like Communists are the ones who force people into government programs against their will and then seize their family home to pay for those programs.

If you really want individual responsibility, give poor people the option of paying their own way instead of forcing them into a government program against their will and then demanding that they forfeit their family home to pay for the services you've forced them to take.
Peter Frouman
 
  5  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2013 04:05 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I see below that you have gone from denying that the government seizes the assets of people on Medicaid when they die, to justifying it.


You stated that "[e]very time someone on Medicaid dies, the state seizes all their assets" and that "if you sign up for Medicaid, the government takes all your assets when you die." As I correctly pointed out, those statements are false.

oralloy wrote:

Where is this supposed "other source" of health insurance for individuals?


Insurance companies will continue to sell plans outside the exchanges. In fact, most Americans will continue to be covered by plans purchased outside the exchanges and anyone will be able to purchase an insurance policy outside the exchange if there is an insurer willing to sell it to them and they are willing to buy it. If someone wants to avoid the exchanges completely (even when it might not always make sense for them to do so), there will be plenty of other options including purchasing a policy outside the exchange. Don't believe me? Perhaps you'll consider a few of the many other reliable sources that state the same thing. Here are a few examples:

Quote:

Many insurers will offer individual policies outside the Obamacare exchanges in 2014. Consumers can avoid the exchanges by buying plans directly from insurers or through brokers.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/05/news/economy/obamacare-exchanges/index.html



Quote:

6. Will people still be able to buy insurance outside of the HIE?

The HIE is not intended to compete with the existing insurance marketplace. Insurers can sell
policies outside of the Exchange; consumers and employers can purchase coverage outside of the
Exchange.

Source: http://gov.idaho.gov/pdf/12-11-2012,HIE%20FAQ.pdf


Quote:

Individuals and businesses may purchase insurance both in and outside the exchange and are not required to purchase in the exchange; however, many are expected to choose the exchange to take advantage of subsidies and tax credits.

Source: http://www.bakerdonelson.com/health-insurance-exchanges-in-ppaca-06-17-2010/


I still don't get how you think someone who qualifies for Medicaid could possibly afford to purchase a health insurance policy when the costs of such a policy are likely to vastly exceed their income and assets. If they did have the resources (income and assets) to afford such a policy, they likely would not qualify for Medicaid. Are you aware of the Medicaid eligibility requirements? Even in the few states that have decided to expand Medicaid, the income and asset limits are very low. This has resulted in the complex legal and financial strategies people use to qualify for Medicaid. Those strategies even include the "Medicaid divorce."

oralloy wrote:

if going on Medicaid were voluntary


It is voluntary. No one is forced to apply for Medicaid.

oralloy wrote:

If you really want individual responsibility, give poor people the option of paying their own way instead of forcing them into a government program against their will and then demanding that they forfeit their family home to pay for the services you've forced them to take.


Again, no one is being forced to apply for Medicaid or to accept services paid for by Medicaid. I'm not sure where you get these ideas but it's simply not true.

oralloy wrote:

What Republicans are these?


Pretty much most Republicans who are opposed to the individual mandate that is the core feature of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It's odd as they are very inconsistent and many of them were for it before they were against it. For example, consider the the plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989 and compare it to their position now.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Affordable Care Act Question
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 09:28:03