REAL COST of OBAMACARE given to me by the Insurance Company!

guess my question was answered

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not to mention that Representative REpublic protects the needs of the minority in a governed group.

By giving people proportional representation, smaller groups are protected from the whims of larger majorities. Imagine the US governed by direct democracy if say California marshaled their forces to either ban guns or ban hunting. What do you think would happen to those who live in places like Alaska where they still need to rely on subsistence hunting to survive? They are a small enough minority that they could never resist California's majority by direct Democractic means; however, in a Republican form of governance like ours, they can find enough allies who value hunting to withstand those efforts. The people who truly do need to hunt are safe.

In all fairness on this topic, I want to make a very important observation I've had over my time working with the data and trying to understand the beast we know as the PPACA.

Not EVERYONE is screwed by this. Some people are happy. Some, even improved their situation. Dramatically for some cases. This is not the rule, by any means I have seen. However, to say the good cases don't exist is to polarize this into another Us/Them thing which will have the citizens bickering right into the end game we won't break long enough to try and do anything about.

States fall into two ..actually three..categories. Thats the first BIG thing to understand.

#1. States who chose to make internal exchanges and who embraced this system from the early days. California, Maryland and others fall into this category with varying results. Some have largely ...umm..decent results and some are just examples of how Government isn't the answer to anything but "What else can go wrong?".

#2. States who did not or would not create their own internal exchanges, but are cooperating in a game of catch up to make it all work now. These are states that are in a bit of limbo in more than one way. First, there is a question as to whether the ACA legal wording permits credits or subsidy to be given to anyone living in them. No subsidy means the numbers seen on page 1 of this thread are the min. rates to pay BEFORE things are added on. Subsidy can cut those by half or more, off the top. These states are having a rough time.

#3. States who outright passed state laws or amendments to their State Constitutions specifically prohibiting the exchange system, cooperation with it and/or $1 of state time or resources given toward it. Missouri is one of these, by the way. These are the states also largely using the allowance of the Robert's Supreme Court decision to refuse expansion of the Medicaid/Medicare programs. It's a survival move to the state but it's a very hard row to hoe for the people living in them right now. By law, no subsidy or tax credits are supposed to be extended to states for this category, but that is what isn't clear, to my knowledge at this point, for how it will play out. The administration wants the credits given anyway, for the sheer number of states this actually came to describe.

People in the #1 states are, frankly, #1 on their experiences. #2 and #3 are now or have been in various states of resistance to the ACA, right or wrong, and are paying for that now in ways that didn't need to be deliberate. The system that's been designed simply has little to no forgiveness for late starts or poorly thought out compliance....

So BOTH sides are right and in this case? BOTH sides are wrong to different degrees, in my opinion. It IS a disaster, but honest to God, not everyone sees it that way for HOW different the impact is from one area to another. That, I can fully understand and see, for what it's worth.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
So now that a very large amount of people are forced to have health insurance, healthcare costs will finally go down. It's just a matter of time. Just wait.

As long as health providers, insurance and big pharma can get away with the racketeering hand in hand with the government that's known as the U.S. heath care system it wont make a bit of difference how many are enrolled.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Just like car insurance prices went down after it was mandated by law......

That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. How can you sit there and compare this to car insurance, it has absolutely no similarity to Health Insurance and Health Care at all.

Heath Insurance is really expensive because Health Care is really expensive. Health Care is really expensive because people without health insurance will use "Urgent Care" which is forced to help patients even if they can't pay, and most patients don't ever pay their bills (mostly immigrants that use fake names). Those bills add up at the hospital, and the hospital is forced to increase their health care costs to make up for their loses. That in turn increases health insurance rates, because health care is expensive.

Car insurance is not even close to being similar, because you can't get your car replaced or fixed without paying for it. They don't have an "Urgent Care" for cars... So the price to repair or fix a car (Car Care) has always been the same. Increasing the use of Car Insurance had no affect on Car Care prices.

The same can not be said for Health Insurance and Health Care. Now that everyone will be forced to have health insurance, nobody can skip out on paying their Urgent Care bills, so hospitals will not have to increase health care costs to ridiculous prices to make up for loses, because they will have no more loses.

It's common sense people...

originally posted by: KyoZero


2. I really wish we'd get it over with and have socialized healthcare already

Its not even a question of socialised healthcare. You can start, as a nation, by thinking of healthcare as a medical and social concern instead of a financial product.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

If the US used common sense in health care then we would have the standard of care that the rest of the civilized world has without causing bankruptcy to the common citizen. The health care costs are not out of control because of poor people skipping out on the bill, that is a lie sold to the masses to focus the blame elsewhere.

The health insurance industry spends more on administrative costs than patient health care, having everyone in the US signed up will not change this. Their business model is based on maximizing profits not the well being of patients.

When car insurance was mandated, the cost of car insurance went up. The argument is valid in this debate. The same thing is happening with health insurance. Common sense dude.

We are being forced to buy a defective product.

originally posted by: jrflipjr
"Democratic self-government does not work, according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics. They are also not inclined to acquire such knowledge. The effort and self-discipline required for serious study is not something most people enjoy. In their ignorance they tend to vote for politicians who beguile them with appearances and nebulous talk, and they inevitably find themselves at the mercy of administrations and conditions over which they have no control because they do not understand what is happening around them. They are guided by unreliable emotions more than by careful analysis, and they are lured into adventurous wars and victimized by costly defeats that could have been entirely avoided."

- Frostburg University, Plato: The failure of Democracy - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Luckily we're not democratic self government. We're a constitutional democratic republic. Our problem is more an ignoring of the mandates placed by out constitution and willful ignorance than common people not knowing how to run the state. Hell, it's the statesmen not knowing how to run the state that is the US's problem.

There was a reason that originally to vote you had to be a white, male land owner and that's because at the time, those were the people most capable of making informed decisions.

We have gone too far the other direction now allowing uninformed willfully ignorant fools the ability to vote, but try mentioning the requirement of passing a test to vote and see TPTB jumping out of their skin decrying racism...

No one should be limited based solely on their race, gender etc... but we have to limit those who don't have a dog in the fight or who aren't willing to step up and become informed at least about how the government is supposed to work.

Hell, we don't even have a test for those wishing to run for office. When you have elected officials that think that islands are in danger of capsizing, you KNOW it's time to have a qualification requirement for becoming an elected official that is more stringent than breathing as a US citizen over a certain age.

Jaden

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WeAre0ne

If the US used common sense in health care then we would have the standard of care that the rest of the civilized world has without causing bankruptcy.

The health insurance spends more on administrative costs than patient health care, having everyone in the US signed up will not change this. Their business model is based on maximizing profits not the well being of patients.

When car insurance was mandated, the cost of car insurance went up. The argument is valid in this debate. The same thing is happening with health insurance. Common sense dude.

Please, just stop trying to compare this to auto insurance, it makes you look ridiculous.

The reason Health Insurance increased when it was made mandatory is not only because of administrative costs (which is minimal). It is because health insurance companies are now forced by law to also provide insurance for high-risk people whom would have normally been rejected coverage. These high-risk people often use their insurance more than others, causing the insurance companies to need to increase insurance rates for all to cover them.

When car insurance was made mandatory, insurers were NOT forced by law to cover high-risk people. So the "same thing" is not happening with health insurance, and your comparison to car insurance is ridiculous.

Your counter argument to my argument is a complete joke, because you obviously didn't understand my argument.

My argument is, now that health insurance is mandatory, the cost of health care will decrease in the long term. When health care decreases, so will health insurance. I can go in to detail why, but I already explained why.

Also...

To maximize profits, the worse thing to do is increase prices, because it will reduce sales. That is because people will not want to pay, and they will go somewhere that has cheaper prices. The best way to maximize profits is to increase sales, and you do that by having lower prices than your competitors, so you take sales from your competitors. It's Economics 101: Lower Price to Increase Demand.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
Here is the companies claim on what the cost of plans were before and now that the federal law past"

Can we stop the BS please?

BlueCare HMO All Copay Plus 1491P
Annual Deductible: Individual: $0 / Family: $0
Co-Insurance (Co-payment): 0%
Maximum Out of Pocket expense: Individual: $2,000 / Family: $4,000
Brand drugs Co-Pay: $15
consumerdirect.bcbsfl.com...

BlueCare 806 HMO
Annual Deductible: $5,000 individual/ $10,000 family. $1,500 pharmacy brand deductible.
Maximum Out of Pocket expense: Individual: $15,000
Co-Payments: $35-65 for office visits
Brand Drugs Co-Pay: $1,500 out of pocket limit
It goes on and on $500 for an ER visit...and a tonnage of crap it doesn't cover
www.bcbsfl.com...


THIS ISN'T BEFORE AND AFTER OBAMACARE...IT IS A FERRARI PLAN VS UGO...

What utter BS Propaganda!

44 Flags...and pages of ideological back slapping stars...but no one stopped to compare the plans? The whole effen premise of the OP?

Ideology rots the intellect of otherwise valuable members of ATS... a sight that used to cheer "Denying Ignorance" above all else.

It took me 3 minutes to find the BS...A few years ago people of both political persuasions would have spotted the BS in this op on page one.

Instead...40+ plus flags and more BS..Sad...really sad what has become of ATS.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
So now that a very large amount of people are forced to have health insurance, healthcare costs will finally go down. It's just a matter of time. Just wait.

Are you kidding me?

Are you being sarcastic here?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WeAre0ne

If the US used common sense in health care then we would have the standard of care that the rest of the civilized world has without causing bankruptcy.

The health insurance spends more on administrative costs than patient health care, having everyone in the US signed up will not change this. Their business model is based on maximizing profits not the well being of patients.

When car insurance was mandated, the cost of car insurance went up. The argument is valid in this debate. The same thing is happening with health insurance. Common sense dude.

Please, just stop trying to compare this to auto insurance, it makes you look ridiculous.

The reason Health Insurance increased when it was made mandatory is not only because of administrative costs (which is minimal). It is because health insurance companies are now forced by law to also provide insurance for high-risk people whom would have normally been rejected coverage. These high-risk people often use their insurance more than others, causing the insurance companies to need to increase insurance rates for all to cover them.

When car insurance was made mandatory, insurers were NOT forced by law to cover high-risk people. So the "same thing" is not happening with health insurance, and your comparison to car insurance is ridiculous.

Your counter argument to my argument is a complete joke, because you obviously didn't understand my argument.

My argument is, now that health insurance is mandatory, the cost of health care will decrease in the long term. When health care decreases, so will health insurance. I can go in to detail why, but I already explained why.

Also...

To maximize profits, the worse thing to do is increase prices, because it will reduce sales. That is because people will not want to pay, and they will go somewhere that has cheaper prices. The best way to maximize profits is to increase sales, and you do that by having lower prices than your competitors, so you take sales from your competitors. It's Economics 101: Lower Price to Increase Demand.

You are forgetting one important thing...Fuzzy Economics

Even in our most fundamental paradigm of economic relationship, demand-supply analysis, our best hope is to predict that if the demand or supply curve shifts in a certain direction, the price or quantity will change in the direction predicted by the model. For example, if demand increases (shifts right) but supply does not change, the model predicts that market price will rise and quantity traded will increase. We are happy if we can get the directions of change of the variables right, but we rarely take the follow-on step to compute the likely magnitude of change. In this and many other contexts, we are limited to practicing “fuzzy economics.”

A more complex phenomenon occurs if both the demand and supply curves shift in the same direction. In this case, we can be confident of the direction of change of quantity, but uncertain as to the direction of change of price. Whether price rises, falls, or remains the same depends entirely upon the relative magnitudes of the shifts of demand and supply. If the direction of change is fuzzy, predicting the magnitude of change is irrelevant.

So your projection that prices will go down, is fuzzy math and irrelevant.

a reply to: Indigo5

BlueCare HMO All Copay Plus 1491P = $530 for a male born in 1963

The 806 plan is a pre-ACA plan, and no longer exists

Coverage Period:
07/23/2012 – 12/31/2013

www.bcbsfl.com...

a reply to: WeAre0ne

The Economic Laws of Supply and Demand only apply in the free market. The health insurance industry now will essentially have a form of corporate welfare in these subsidiaries. Rules of free market economics do not work when government subsidiaries are in play. This is not as simple as you like to explain it in your wishy-washy version of healthcare and economics. If things were that simple then the healthcare mess in the US would never have happened in the first place.

The health care system in the US is fundamentally flawed because a for profit industry was built around healthcare, until that changes the US will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in vital health statistics.

Since this is a debate it is okay that you attack my arguments, however now you have twice came out with negative comments about me because you do not like my car insurance argument, that is not how intelligent people debate one another.

I am not comparing health care to car insurance, however when car insurance was made mandatory, promises were made that because more people were insured the cost of car insurance will go down. That of course did not happen.

That same promise was made about health insurance in the USA, and anyone who does not have wool over their eyes can see this is true for most Americans.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Indigo5

BlueCare HMO All Copay Plus 1491P = $530 for a male born in 1963

The 860 plan is a pre-ACA plan, and no longer exists

Coverage Period:
07/23/2012 – 12/31/2013

(A) its' 806, not 860
(B) You have no relevant point. Whether it exists or not, it is the plan they chose to compare.

They compared a top of the line ZERO deductible plan with the cheapest plan they had.

That is fact.

a reply to: WarminIndy

FIrst let me thank you for a well thought out response. The fact that you can remain totally civil makes the following conversation possible.

Lets discuss the literacy of the average person during the late 1700s. Here is an expert from the national postal museum. I use them since the mandatory use of written letters during that time as the only viable means of communication is a great gage as to how literate people were by measure of their use of the postal system for communication.

Despite the drastic improvements Franklin made in the colonial postal system, sending letters through the mail was still prohibitively expensive. Ordinary citizens usually couldn’t afford to mail a letter through the official post.

They might try sending letters by way of an acquaintance traveling near the letters’ destination, but for the most part most American colonists sent very few letters in their lifetimes, averaging at one letter received per person per year.

Expensive postage was only part of the reason for this dearth. Another significant factor was that illiteracy was not uncommon among the colonists, or throughout England and Western Europe, for that matter. While basic reading skills were considered important for all children to learn, so that they could read the Holy Scriptures, many American adults either never acquired the skill or forgot what little they had known.

The literacy rate among women, for example, was 55% in the late 1700s, and only that high because mothers were expected to be able to give their children moral instruction by referencing the Bible. If sending news by letter became imperative, literate persons like the town doctor or minister could often be found to read the letter to its illiterate recipients, but such a course of action was so cumbersome to arrange that most colonists rarely sent letters at all.

So here we have a valid source I feel we can trust to measure how literate colonists were during the framing of the constitution and our government. While in northern states education was slightly better than southern states, most still lacked a real use for being literate beyond the business oriented and the upper echelon of society. In NE there was the only public school system. Other than that, the average person only used their ability to read for scripture.

The demand for education was actually slightly higher in the US than in Europe at that time believe it or not. Some attribute this as one of the necessary components to the American revolution getting off the ground at all. Even at this elevated rate compared to other parts of the world, literacy was something of the upper classes or the business owners and merchants that needed written word to maintain operations. It was still yet only functional and not recreational or otherwise motivated.

Almost all of the mail that came through the United Colonies Post, therefore, was sent by a select group of wealthy, upper-class citizens who could both afford the postage rates and be assured that the recipients of their letters were educated enough to read them. These were the same citizens, by virtue of their social standing more than their education, who fell naturally into the positions of governmental leadership in the colonies and in the new nation. These merchants and public figures (and sometimes their wives) had to transact all of their non-local business through the mail, and so kept the Post in continuous action.

www.postalmuseum.si.edu...

Our Founding Fathers believed in the principle of literacy and education and felt that even to vote, one must be literate and intelligent enough to understand the issues. Voting was a solemn act back then. Reading the Bible for yourself was not frowned upon at all by our Founding Fathers, they believed and promoted education and literacy.

While I agree with the principle, I doubt that our founding fathers had much vested in the ability of the average person to vote, hence the republic. When I say that reading the bible was frowned upon, I say so referring to the times from the then not too distant past when it was outright illegal.

You are correct in the mention of the purpose of the King James bible. This was still a new and novel idea that had not entirely sunk in to the average person all across the colonies. The nature of the life of the times demanded that only one parent be educated enough to teach the children of the home, being that most were home schooled. The other head of the family, usually the father, had to work in fields of labor that required no literacy at all. Anything they had learned as children was lost from nonuse.

Adapt to what? We are already being asked to adapt to things that go against our conscience, and some of us refuse to --why? Because we are educated, even if we do come from a "lower class" but we are told to adapt to this current state of affairs -- why?

The very nature of the constitution and really law itself is one of schools of thought based on purity of interpretation. The federalists and the anti-federalists for example. Purists and revisionists in their own right which both argued for interpretation based on the current needs of society, or a purist interpretation seen as perfect enough to meet the needs of society no matter the changes it undergoes.

The fact that our constitution does allow for amendments and is expressly NOT written in stone is so future generations can maintain and keep our constitution valid. Even the purists among our founding fathers knew and accepted that change is unavoidable and must be embraced. They were in the process of experimenting with extreme change to the secure and functional system they lived under in favor of trying a new concept based on what they saw as improvements to that system. They did understand that in order to form a more perfect union...hint, that they must make a system that is adaptable to the needs of the people in so much as it must strive to represent them in their true form. A form which they did not leave to the winds of chance, but still saw in a light of self determination and the self expression of the will of free men so as to become masters of their own destiny.

You do, but what do you waste your power on? Exposing an Illuminati? Exposing the NWO? Exposing a "Zionist Conspiracy"?
Let me explain to you about Jews, ok.

This was a little confusing. I feel you have misunderstood me or I have misrepresented myself and grossly at that.
I have little to no interest in any of those subjects. My youth is increasingly placing itself behind me and my understanding of the world and all that is human nature keeps from such logical fallacies. I am for forming a more perfect union always and only so when speaking of government or politics; subjects I rarely even talk about in real life. I occupy my time with self improvement, little things, my family, community, and those I see personally within my limited realm of influence. I see no reason to frustrate all I can do with the angst and "righteous struggle" of the things I can not or wish not to be able to change or affect. I think of all that you mentioned as being akin to childrens stories for those who are limited in knowledge but rich in imagination.

a reply to: WarminIndy
continued

Or don't become a slave to the system, overturn it by becoming educated, no matter the cost.

I have no irresponsible wish to overturn anything that is at the core of countless people´s very real lives. I only wish to be brazen enough to risk more from time to time so as to have greater gains from a better function and adaptability of our society to the changes we undergo as a people. I think it reasonable to do so and irresponsible to avoid such actions and intentions.

Change is the only constant in the universe. Logic and wisdom teach us to embrace change so as to anticipate it. This is all done on a societal level so as to make any necessary transitions a society may have in its future with the least possible discomfort and complications which could ultimately undermine the foundations of the institutions and culture which we could and would like to preserve.

I also know of the resources and possibilities for the average person to become more educated and secure a better future for himself by way of self empowerment. I will "one up" you the free Harvard education you mentioned. We have the modern equivalent of the library of Alexandria in the hands of more people today than those that existed during the existence of the second and first actual libraries of Alexandria.

Self education has never been so formidable for the human race. That is kind of the point I am making. We are ever more empowered with more abilities on the horizon than we have had in even several hundred years. Abilities which I see our society and its leadership as being grossly underprepared to address.

If the printing press made the American revolution possible, the internet and mass communication and travel will make the next stage in revolution possible. Indeed, it is inevitable and as such must be embraced or we run the risk of massive upheaval at a species level event. "Obamacare" is a prime example of the old ways trying to cope. It is an example of the death throes of the need for bailouts after bailouts....tribute after tribute......

Inefficiency is a threat to our species since as we are more in number in every imaginable way and at an alarming exponential rate of growth, our inefficiency is reaching new heights.... heights which WILL be addressed one way or the other due to the incredible threat they represent for our survival as a species.

Either our leaders gracefully step aside so a bigger bridge can be built to this boat....or we are going to sink this mother, due to a mutiny or otherwise avoidable event. I say this because as I see it from where I am sitting....the way the average intelligent person will see it, beyond all illusion and bags of tricks, we are better off swimming alone to smaller islands than rowing someone elses boat full of their dead weight which will never reach the promised land.

If that is what they want: a destruction of all that was built up to now in exchange for a few more generations of their absolute power then so be it. I think that is their defining madness.

They could , if you excuse me stretching this analogy any farther, have a continuation of all that is where a bigger boat is built for a bigger crew and a more ambitious journey. They need only see the horizon and adapt to the seas and currents before them.

and lastly to answer your last comment.

I have not given up. I have learned and become committed.

I have never been more at war. I have never been so committed. I have never been so intune with my free spirit. I am on fire inside both heart and soul.

I need not consume myself in a single brazen flash. I wish to use this heat of activity in my purpose to warm the hearts of others. I wish to see that from this relatively small spark compared to all life that I feel as passion and fire, for a long lasting and slow burning fire of light to emerge. I will not make ash and cinder, but I will burn hot and long. My purpose is light, not fire for war, though I am at war.

I say we should fear not the flame of democracy. I say we would be fearing only its light by habit and virtue of fearing the night.

We need not be afraid any longer. Fortune smiles on us if we only just trust ourselves.

Misfortune is also keeping a watchful eye and is ready to snatch from us all that we are and have built ourselves up to be....as has happened before...and will happen again, and again, and again.....

a reply to: Phoenix

It'd be writing a blank check to a system immune from laws dealing with monopolistic, price fixing, price gouging and anti-competive practice supported by federal and state law

I look at it like this: The government is going to take your money away from you no matter what.

Has anyone stopped to consider why this was rammed through when it was? Didn't the government's attempt at a carbon tax magnificently flop? Obama just needed more money to spend on vacations for him and his family.

originally posted by: jrod
I am not comparing health care to car insurance, however when car insurance was made mandatory, promises were made that because more people were insured the cost of car insurance will go down. That of course did not happen.

You just proved you didn't understand my argument. You also proved your argument is invalid.

I said, "because health insurance is mandatory, heath CARE cost will go down".

I did NOT say, "because health insurance is mandatory, health insurance cost will go down".

So your argument is flawed, and has no relation to my argument. Hence why I was ridiculing you, because you tried to use a straw man argument.

If you would have said, "when car insurance was made mandatory, car body shop and repair service prices increased" maybe you would have an argument, but that didn't happen so you have no argument.

Do you people have trouble understanding the difference between health care and health insurance?

When health insurance is mandatory, health care costs will reduce. When health care cost reduce, then health insurance will reduce. Why the heck do you think this entire plan was put into place besides some stupid money grab conspiracy?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
So now that a very large amount of people are forced to have health insurance, healthcare costs will finally go down. It's just a matter of time. Just wait.

Are you kidding me?

Are you being sarcastic here?

I am being serious. Because I know why it costs so much to get an xray at the hospital, or to get any type of health care. I know why it is so expensive. Do you know why?

I also know that if more people have health insurance, and they use that health insurance, that it will drastically affect the cause of expensive health care.

You obviously don't know why.