Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The law of the land for all?

October 7, 2013

Some members of Congress might have been more interested in delaying Obamacare if they and their staffs had to cope with anything like it. But they do not....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(33)

kingdom

Oct-07-13 7:56 AM

well, this editorial answered my question"does the MDN actually believe the gibberish they publish? Michelle Malkin and all the other Fox news contributors? Employers often pay at least a portion of their employee's health care. Tax payers also subsidize many other employers health care cost, like Walmart for example. Federal workers actually work for the gov, hence their employer.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Oct-07-13 9:47 AM

This opinion piece implies that everyone in the country must drop their health insurance policy provided by their employer (subsidized by taxes) and buy a policy on the exchanges. False. Just plain false. What will follow will be comment after comment that says they will not buy a policy on the exchange. Good. Don't. Just buy your outrageously priced policy straight from an agent. Live with it, but let others live with the ACA.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

subman

Oct-07-13 12:29 PM

just heard that a father of 2 recieved a letter from his insurance company in California informing him that his premium will increase $10,000 next year and a single gal got one telling her that hers will increase $1800 next year...

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Oct-07-13 1:11 PM

rajiihammr, the only problem is that they (need) people in this program to make it work properly. The government won't say how many flocked to sign up. Do you suppose they are little short on the sign ups? And thank you for agreeing that we have a choice in Keeping our own insurance, and do not have to sign up for the exchange.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Oct-07-13 1:57 PM

Missy, I only hope you are right, but I fear you are in for a surprise. According to a San Jose Mercury News article: "Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama. Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law. Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four."

As people drop out because they can't afford it, insurance companies will close.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Oct-07-13 2:57 PM

I am sure there will be a lot of surprises. I just renewed my policy two months ago. It went up close to 100.00/month. I pay 1413.80 a month. But, I have 100.00 deductible and 500.00 deductible major medical. I have an old dinosaur plan. I want to keep my plan.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Oct-07-13 2:58 PM

This covers my husband and myself.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Oct-07-13 2:58 PM

"People like Marilynn Gray-Raine. The 64-year-old Danville artist, who survived breast cancer, has purchased health insurance for herself for decades. She watched her Anthem Blue Cross monthly premiums rise from $317 in 2005 to $1,298 in 2013. But she found out last week from the Covered California site that her payments will drop to about $795 a month." Same article , same paper.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Oct-07-13 3:04 PM

Missy, I would guess that either you or your husband must doctor a lot. Is that correct? It certainly is a Mercedes plan. You might be better off financially with a more "liberal" deductible. Or, maybe it would be a more "conservative" deductible.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

makeinitwork

Oct-07-13 4:29 PM

Under this new law I will finally be able to take advantage of something offered by this administration. It only fair, if those that benefit the most have to pay the most taxes, then those that use the most healthcare can foott the bill for that. Here's how it works. I am middle aged and self imployed. I pay about $400/month for health care. Because you can't be refused coverage for per-existing conditions, I can now drop my plan and go without. If I need coverage later, they can't reject me. Meanwhile, people with health problems can pay the premiums. Whether its private insurance or the exchanges a large number of healthy people that typically subsidize unhealthy people have the option to go without. I fully expect the generation younger than me to do the same instead of paying a quarter of their salary for coverage.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Oct-07-13 7:45 PM

Centerfield, no, my husband and I don't doctor a lot. Our normal every year health exams. But if something pops up. I don't think we will be on a waiting list.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Oct-07-13 8:16 PM

I should have included, it is a 100.00 for him and 100.00 for me deductible, 500.00 for him and 500.00 for me. Major Medical. They will probably throw us off the ship, but for now, it is in place.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-07-13 8:25 PM

this editorial is nuts. it is like saying lets give non-farmers a farm subsidy or lets give food stamps to the koch's. it is terrific insight into the irrational thinking of many right wing fanatics. no wonder they obstruct in congress.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-07-13 9:11 PM

mkitwork: all must be insured under ACA. would you prefer everyone with severe health problems be bankrupt with no incentive to work? b4 ACA we insured payed the bill for those who dodge their bills, and those whose medical bills were beyond their ability to pay. more people will be paying for their medical costs under ACA. I am optimistic that with more payers--costs for the rest of us are just as likely to go down.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pslater

Oct-07-13 9:16 PM

Get over it! The last six words of the "Opinion" say it all!!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-07-13 9:22 PM

big pharma makes big profits from the high prices they charge us. they use some of their big profits to fight the ACA. BP spilled oil in the gulf and spends millions to tell us what a good job they are doing cleaning it up. maybe gas would be a dime cheaper if bp would just shut up. maybe ACA would not be needed if big pharma did not have such high profits. ACA is fighting the big profits in big money who have bought the t party. the patriots are on the side of ACA.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-07-13 11:09 PM

tp wants government shut down so everyone can feel just like tp's brains. easy to spot--looks like cantor's face.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Oct-08-13 10:30 AM

"...why should I cut when my government isn't doing their fair share? YOU comrades always think the OTHER comrade should do it all. Should you get the Central Government to cut SOME of those things you want gone I'll think about doing my fair share..."

Amen to this. Government should be showing its citizens the way to responsibility, not the other way 'round.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Oct-08-13 10:40 AM

The little rant about "shutting it all down" has been interesting, but at best, unrealistic in our times of Big Government.

What would be a more realistic goal is PARING down the Big Government, once Pres. Obama/Sen. Democrats could agree to meet with Republicans and hash out what things to PARE, meaning cut, make smaller, trim, etc.

What say all of you? Just axing...

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

makeinitwork

Oct-08-13 10:51 AM

Legend, What you need to understand is that people don't need to have insurance anymore. Previous estimates indicated that upwards of 30 mil didn't have coverage. All I am saying is that this number will go higher. If I don't need insurance right now, why would I have insurance. Why would I have it? What good is it doing for me? When I need it they have to accept me under this plan. The fine for not having insurance does increase year after year, but its miniscule compared to a years worth of premium. If the fine equalled what you would have to pay for a premium, they might have something here. Right now, they have nothing to entice people to buy insurance.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Oct-08-13 11:12 AM

makeinitwork, you've got reason plus reality in your posts about obamacare/insurance.

Libs can argue, but it is what it is.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

makeinitwork

Oct-08-13 11:51 AM

One factor that merits mention and could/probably should entice potential users to be more proactive than reactive is the fact that similar to now ACA will have designated enrollment periods. However, I anticipate more flexibility on enrollment periods, before they adjust the fine schedule.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

makeinitwork

Oct-08-13 5:22 PM

VERITAS Oct-08-13 3:36 PM "One would have to assume you're referring to alot of people say in West Virginia or Kentucky...Or The Alabama poor...Right?

Might not apply to millions of people...Hard working Republicans & Democrats who DO NOT meet standard insurance criteria therefore CANNOT get IT but will gladly buy it... Perhaps?"

Not referring to the poor at all. They should buy it. With help they may actually be able to afford it initially. Rich or poor, the folks that didn't meet the criteria to get health care, prior to the ACA, didn't meet criteria because they needed some type of medical attention. Unfortunately, that is still the case and there's no way around it. Adding a large number of folks that need medical attention needs to happen in the civilized world, but it will drive costs higher and may limit access. Higher costs mean higher premiums, which could be excessively higher, because healthy people and youth can elect out of the entire system for a m

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Oct-08-13 7:15 PM

Last week, ThinkProgress brought you the story of a man named Butch Matthews. He’s an Arkansas Republican and former small business owner, never liked Obamacare, but he learned to love the law when he found out it would save him $13,000 a year.

I have no more info than that...what's good enough for Whistler is good enough for Rajii.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Oct-08-13 8:45 PM

makiniw: if you need extensive medical care and do not have ins., you could rack up a bill you could never pay. the insured would pay your bill. medical bills are so high that even the insured can have a hard time paying the deductible. medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. that is why everyone should be covered.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web