re: ACA rates

quote:

---

My premiums went up 58% a month and my yearly out of pocket went from 1750 to 6000. 

Tell me how it's saved me $2500 as the President promised. 

Also, tell me, as a small business owner, how it's helped me be more productive and allowed me to grow my business in this stagnant economy.

---

Poppycock, you simply don't understand the merits of the ACA.

On a positive note, now Rex, who refused to pay for health insurance before, has a lower rate thanks to you. Congrats, your charity is very much appreciated.

quote:

---

My premiums went up 58% a month and my yearly out of pocket went from 1750 to 6000.

---

Rex thanks you for paying for your "insurance".

quote:

---

Yes, the subsidies are indeed charitable,

---

NO!

quote:

---

How is it charity if I pay my own premium to the insurance company?

---

One, your premium is capped at 300% of the insurance companies lowest offering. The difference is made up by artificially raising the low end.

Second, you're only paying a premium. Not the total cost of care. Where do you think the difference comes from? Contrary to what many seem to believe, insurance companies do not have magic ATMs that turn a premium into the total cost of care.

I've said all along that one of the cultural problems with the ACA is that it gives people the false impression they are "paying for their own care". This is by design--so that consumers will demand more, more, more. But it's nothing more than a myth. Anyone care to guess where the more, more, demand strategy comes from?

What's really funny about this is when you apply the principle to the medical field and doctors......

Lets say I'm a doctor who accepts Medicare/insurance. I HAVE to bill a cash pay patient as much as I bill Medicare. It is illegal to do otherwise. Medicare (the govrnment) won't let you bill them more than you charge a patient without insurance. But that sane government lets the cost of ACA insurance to be charged at a higher rate than private insurance, thru the same company, with the same coverage!
I hope my posts makes sense to you guys like it does in my head....

The hypocrisy is unbelievable!

quote:

---

1. The rates you quoted are not the ACA's. The ACA doesn't provide insurance. It's only a set of laws governing how insurance companies must now operate, and delineating the extent to which the Federal government will help consumers.

---

So the ACA (the AFFORDABLE Care Act) was put in place to help control the rising costs of medical care (and thus health insurance) but now it magically has nothing to do with those costs?

Then why was it passed in the first place?

quote:

---

Do you apologize for the charity your employer gives you?

---

Touche'

quote:

---

If you were perfectly non-hypocritical about this whole affair you would send in an amount to the IRS equal to the value of the tax you would owe on the value of the healthcare benefit you receive.

---

A true libertarian might would, but as you point out being truly non-hypocritical is difficult to do. It's an "I got mine, you get yours" mentality we all share to some degree.

Keeping from a derail my thread, though, what concerns me is that if my employer can obtain rates at half the cost of a rate submitted on an ACA participating insurance provider with only a few hundred employees (and they have to meet the same stipulations, including pre-existing conditions) why would an insurance company now with a much larger pool have rates that are so much higher?

That's because when I signed up for the employer's insurance there is no differentiation given for age. Everyone comes in at the same rates.

However, in order for ACA to attract younger citizens, they have to artificially lower the rates so that they are attractive enough to get the younger ones to buy in and then they raise the rates on those older. Not saying that's necessarily wrong, but its different than it is with my company's Aetna policy.

Why are the rates on the open market so much more?

quote:

---

Do you apologize for the charity your employer gives you?

---

I wish you were joking, but I know you're not. The portion my employer pays of my premium is the opposite of "charity", its part of the agreement we have for compensation of services rendered. He's not GIVING me anything for FREE. If a portion of my premium wasn't paid by the company, I would expect a higher salary to compensate for that ammountfor which I am owed for the WORK that I do.

quote:

---

The charity we were discussing and to which I was referring was government charity,

---

Government charity is an oxymoron.

The government is incapable of providing charity.

Individuals and private organizations provide charity voluntarily as it suits their ideas of what is worthwhile to support and what is not worthwhile to support.

Money given to charity is not available to be spent by the individual or organization on other things. Thus that money is lost to them - but they do it because the sacrifice they make is to advance some higher cause, in their own mind.

Governments pass laws that obligate payments to one group of citizens that is taken from some other group of citizens. The 'other' group of citizens has no say in the matter and it doesn't matter if the payments made actually advance any desirable cause or not.

What we are approaching now is a mishmash of laws that demand payments to groups of people (not even necessarily citizens) for the sole purpose of creating a voting bloc of people who are dependent on the payments.

There is not an ounce of 'charity' in any government payment.

quote:

---

Do you apologize for the charity your employer gives you? Do you apologize for the subsidy, in the form of tax deductions and credits, that is passed on to yourself?

---

Rex, I trust that silliness sounded better in your head before you uploaded it.