2014 Health Insurance Premiums - Ouch!

[msop04]

I don't think it's fair to say that in "many" cases, a wealthy person did not work hard for their wealth. Also, I certainly don't think that I earned my wealth (if you could call it that - again, I do not consider myself to be a very wealthy person) all on my own. Clearly, most of us are smart enough to understand that there are circumstances that have more favorable outcomes than others.
Again, I think that most of us can agree on the betterment of society, but the beef I have is in the ways in which we are forced to participate. I would have no issue paying more for programs, systems, etc. that actually work.
Anyways, we could go back and forth all day long about who should/should not pay for what. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter because when the government asks me to pay, I pay. Period.

...and, sadly, this. <shrugs>

 

[amc80]

Some people just don't get it and there's no point in wasting my time or theirs.

Don't get it? Maybe people just don't agree with your opinion. They have the right to their beliefs just as you do to yours. Your statements makes it sound like your way is THE only way.

 

[msop04]

This thread makes me want to bang my head against the wall. But I will refrain from doing so because of my high deductible and co-pay at the hospital.

Beacon understands the economic impact more than anyone else here. Just wait and see. System is broken and the ACA is a bandaid that won't fix it by any stretch of the imagination. I predict there will be as many or more people uninsured next year.

Yep, I feel you're right about this, diamondseeker. I truly believe the ACA was made to help everyone and "fix" our system, but like so many government plans, I don't think it's gonna work -- I HOPE I AM VERY WRONG!!! It is on rare occasion that I find pleasure in admitting I was wrong, but it would be awesome if in 5 years or so I would be able to say I was wrong about ACA during the Obama administration and things have certainly improved...

I just don't feel this will be the case. I don't even pretend to have all the answers, but I don't feel this is the way to start to fix the healthcare issues in the US.

 

[msop04]

I believe that the near term result will be carriers jacking up prices because they can. But eventually competition will ensue and prices will come back down. If we're angry about increased premiums, we should be pissed at the corporate insurance carriers, or pissed at the language of ACA itself because it doesn't include pricing regulation. But to be pissed off at the poor? Really?

I hope you are right and this comes to fruition as it was "sold" to the American people. I don't think people are pissed off at poor people. I can't speak for everyone, but I am personally pissed that we, as a people, have elected a government who has no cap on spending, is severely in debt with no clear budget in sight for over 5 years, and still insists on giving and more giving to those who choose not to work -- because it they did, the free stuff would end and they would be "worse off" paying for their own existence.

And, contrary to what you may believe, it's not a necessarily a political party thing for me -- Bill Clinton was quite possibly my favorite president. No one since Kennedy has been able to get our budget in the black, Democrat or Republican.

Edited for typos.

 

[ruby59]

That's your perception and that's fine. As a small business owner, I feel that I pay more than my fair share (in taxes, health insurance premiums, etc.). When you've worked hard to earn that money, yes, in some cases it feels like I'm giving it away. And before anyone starts preaching about funding programs that help society/charitable giving, I donate a fairly large portion of money to a select group of charities every year. I would prefer that I pick and choose where/how my money is used as opposed to being forced to participate in wasteful (government) spending like Obamacare....

Education was a must.

So why should he have to subsidize someone who would rather sit back and do nothing?

Do you mean the free socialized public education that every person is able to utilize, and which is paid for by tax revenue?

And do you actually believe that the purpose of ACA is to give free benefits to the small proportion of people who abuse the welfare system, and that the wealthy are paying for it?

ACA is designed to benefit tens of millions of uninsured, many of whom are working at jobs that don't provide any medical benefits at all. It protects each and every one of us from discrimination for preexisting conditions, and it opens up a marketplace for every single person to be able to purchase health insurance.

I believe that the near term result will be carriers jacking up prices because they can. But eventually competition will ensue and prices will come back down. If we're angry about increased premiums, we should be pissed at the corporate insurance carriers, or pissed at the language of ACA itself because it doesn't include pricing regulation. But to be pissed off at the poor? Really?[/quote]


Erica, I was a social worker in my home state and saw first hand how easy it was for some people to abuse the system. When I would call attention to it with my superiors, nothing was done. While I do not feel the purpose of the ACA is to give benefits to people who abuse the system, that certain segment will do so. In fact, I read where because of some bugs in the system, people who request subsidies will be doing so on the homor system, as they will not be checking at this time.

My problem is not helping the truly needy. It is the fact that because there is so much abuse in the system now, that the ACA will just add to it.

And as I said before, I know all about preexisting conditions - high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, thyroid, asthma. My husband and I both worked second jobs to pay for my health benefits. And as others have said, it might open up the market place, but many truely needy people will still not have coverage while the same few will abuse the system even more.

I am not pissed at the poor. I am pissed at the scammers. Show me where the truly needy will get coverage. Show me where the scammers will not. Show me where the middle class will not once again be sholdering the burden.

 

[ericad]

I believe that the near term result will be carriers jacking up prices because they can. But eventually competition will ensue and prices will come back down. If we're angry about increased premiums, we should be pissed at the corporate insurance carriers, or pissed at the language of ACA itself because it doesn't include pricing regulation. But to be pissed off at the poor? Really?

I hope you are right and this comes to fruition as it was "sold" to the American people. I don't think people are pissed off at poor people. I can't speak for everyone, but I am personally pissed that we, as a people, have elected a government who has no cap on spending, is severely in debt with no clear budget in sight for over 5 years, and still insist on giving and more giving to those who choose not to work -- because it they did, they free stuff would end and they would be "worse off" paying for their own existence.

And, contrary to what you may believe, it's not a necessarily a political party thing for me -- Bill Clinton was quite possibly my favorite president. No one since Kennedy has been able to get our budget in the black, Democrat or Republican.

Entitlement policies have been in place for decades. Why are you blaming this administration? What about what 8 years of Bush did to our country? Where was the cap on spending then?

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

 

[ruby59]

I believe that the near term result will be carriers jacking up prices because they can. But eventually competition will ensue and prices will come back down. If we're angry about increased premiums, we should be pissed at the corporate insurance carriers, or pissed at the language of ACA itself because it doesn't include pricing regulation. But to be pissed off at the poor? Really?

I hope you are right and this comes to fruition as it was "sold" to the American people. I don't think people are pissed off at poor people. I can't speak for everyone, but I am personally pissed that we, as a people, have elected a government who has no cap on spending, is severely in debt with no clear budget in sight for over 5 years, and still insist on giving and more giving to those who choose not to work -- because it they did, they free stuff would end and they would be "worse off" paying for their own existence.

And, contrary to what you may believe, it's not a necessarily a political party thing for me -- Bill Clinton was quite possibly my favorite president. No one since Kennedy has been able to get our budget in the black, Democrat or Republican.

Entitlement policies have been in place for decades. Why are you blaming this administration? What about what 8 years of Bush did to our country? Where was the cap on spending then?

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

Erica, where did I mention Obama and that it was his fault? I am referring to the problems in my home state and the politicians who run it into the ground. My home state got a global waver to do it their way. And it has been a disaster.

edit: tried to delete this when I realized it was not directed at me. Sorry, Erica.

 

[ericad]

I believe that the near term result will be carriers jacking up prices because they can. But eventually competition will ensue and prices will come back down. If we're angry about increased premiums, we should be pissed at the corporate insurance carriers, or pissed at the language of ACA itself because it doesn't include pricing regulation. But to be pissed off at the poor? Really?

I hope you are right and this comes to fruition as it was "sold" to the American people. I don't think people are pissed off at poor people. I can't speak for everyone, but I am personally pissed that we, as a people, have elected a government who has no cap on spending, is severely in debt with no clear budget in sight for over 5 years, and still insist on giving and more giving to those who choose not to work -- because it they did, they free stuff would end and they would be "worse off" paying for their own existence.

And, contrary to what you may believe, it's not a necessarily a political party thing for me -- Bill Clinton was quite possibly my favorite president. No one since Kennedy has been able to get our budget in the black, Democrat or Republican.

Entitlement policies have been in place for decades. Why are you blaming this administration? What about what 8 years of Bush did to our country? Where was the cap on spending then?

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

Erica, where did I mention Obama?

Typically when people say "this administration" they primarily mean the president. If you meant something else, then I misunderstood!

 

[msop04]

My problem is not helping the truly needy. It is the fact that because there is so much abuse in the system now, that the ACA will just add to it.

And as I said before, I know all about preexisting conditions - high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, thyroid, asthma. My husband and I both worked second jobs to pay for my health benefits. And as others have said, it might open up the market place, but many truely needy people will still not have coverage while the same few will abuse the system even more.

I am not pissed at the poor. I am pissed at the scammers. Show me where the truly needy will get coverage. Show me where the scammers will not. Show me where the middle class will not once again be sholdering the burden.

Agreed, ruby.

 

[msop04]

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

I don't recall any other administration in recent history giving away such luxury items as cell phones?? ...correct me if I'm wrong, please. And, no, I think Bush was another bad president who happened to be in office when terrorists attacked us. We then went to war. Blaming all of our problems on the previous administation is ridiculous. It's what's done to try to "correct" these problems that interests me. If the national debt is out of control, then don't have your administration blame the previous, yet do the exact same thing. Do something about it. Don't continue to spend just like the admins to which you place all the blame. That is all.

 

[makhro82]

Some people just don't get it and there's no point in wasting my time or theirs.

Don't get it? Maybe people just don't agree with your opinion. They have the right to their beliefs just as you do to yours. Your statements makes it sound like your way is THE only way.

In no way do I believe my beliefs are the only way. I do believe that if you come from a place of privilege it is harder for you to understand the how many people in America are actually living. There's an idea that people who don't make it aren't working hard or making sacrifices.

 

[msop04]

Typically when people say "this administration" they primarily mean the president. If you meant something else, then I misunderstood!

This may not have been for me, but when I say the admistration, I really just meant any administration... they all have their faults.

Obama blames Bush and the GOP, Bush blames Clinton and the Dems, yadda yadda yadda...

I don't like how none seem to take any responsibility these days. It's just a blame game with no real steps to make things right. And.... welcome to modern US politics!

 

[ksinger]

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

I don't recall any other administration in recent history giving away such luxury items as cell phones?? ...correct me if I'm wrong, please. And, no, I think Bush was another bad president who happened to be in office when terrorists attacked us. We then went to war. Blaming all of our problems on the previous administation is ridiculous. It's what's done to try to "correct" these problems that interests me. If the national debt is out of control, then don't have your administration blame the previous, yet do the exact same thing. Do something about it. Don't continue to spend just like the admins to which you place all the blame. That is all.

Since when was a phone a luxury item? A phone is basic - not unlike electricity and indoor plumbing - and has been for most of the 20th century, let alone the 21st, and most people I know (not me, because I'm old and crotchety) are dumping their landlines and using cell only. The days of a cell phone being a "luxury" went out with high-button greaves, now it's just your phone. Do you begrudge the poor even the ability to simply communicate?

And as you cast doubt and challenge others to provide their sources, please provide your sources that reference what programs "this administration" (the executive branch, really??) is using to give away cell phones.

 

[ericad]

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

I don't recall any other administration in recent history giving away such luxury items as cell phones?? ...correct me if I'm wrong, please. And, no, I think Bush was another bad president who happened to be in office when terrorists attacked us. We then went to war. Blaming all of our problems on the previous administation is ridiculous. It's what's done to try to "correct" these problems that interests me. If the national debt is out of control, then don't have your administration blame the previous, yet do the exact same thing. Do something about it. Don't continue to spend just like the admins to which you place all the blame. That is all.

Took me 4.5 seconds to fact check this one.

Government assistance with phone service dates back to 1996, but back then we only had land lines. Now we have cell phones, so this program was amended in 2008, coincidentally the year that Obama was elected.
http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

"...the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton, and has continued under Presidents Bush and Obama. "

 

[Matata]

And as you cast doubt and challenge others to provide their sources, please provide your sources that reference what programs "this administration" (the executive branch, really??) is using to give away cell phones.

This is what she is probably referring to http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

 

[ksinger]

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

I don't recall any other administration in recent history giving away such luxury items as cell phones?? ...correct me if I'm wrong, please. And, no, I think Bush was another bad president who happened to be in office when terrorists attacked us. We then went to war. Blaming all of our problems on the previous administation is ridiculous. It's what's done to try to "correct" these problems that interests me. If the national debt is out of control, then don't have your administration blame the previous, yet do the exact same thing. Do something about it. Don't continue to spend just like the admins to which you place all the blame. That is all.

Took me 4.5 seconds to fact check this one.

Government assistance with phone service dates back to 1996, but back then we only had land lines. Now we have cell phones, so this program was amended in 2008, coincidentally the year that Obama was elected.
http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

"...the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton, and has continued under Presidents Bush and Obama. "

Yep. I actually knew that, because it's easy to find out with a few keystrokes. As is most info these days. Quality info even, if you're willing to parse through some of it.

I'm just getting tired of some of the claims I'm reading in these threads. It's starting to feel like I stumbled into a an email box full of nothing but urban legend chain emails.

 

[ericad]

And as you cast doubt and challenge others to provide their sources, please provide your sources that reference what programs "this administration" (the executive branch, really??) is using to give away cell phones.

This is what she is probably referring to http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

And per Snopes, it actually dates back to the 1980's, and began under Reagan, and was expanded in 1996.

Any other examples?

 

[ericad]

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

I don't recall any other administration in recent history giving away such luxury items as cell phones?? ...correct me if I'm wrong, please. And, no, I think Bush was another bad president who happened to be in office when terrorists attacked us. We then went to war. Blaming all of our problems on the previous administation is ridiculous. It's what's done to try to "correct" these problems that interests me. If the national debt is out of control, then don't have your administration blame the previous, yet do the exact same thing. Do something about it. Don't continue to spend just like the admins to which you place all the blame. That is all.

Took me 4.5 seconds to fact check this one.

Government assistance with phone service dates back to 1996, but back then we only had land lines. Now we have cell phones, so this program was amended in 2008, coincidentally the year that Obama was elected.
http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

"...the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton, and has continued under Presidents Bush and Obama. "

Yep. I actually knew that, because it's easy to find out with a few keystrokes. As is most info these days. Quality info even, if you're willing to parse through some of it.

I'm just getting tired of some of the claims I'm reading in these threads. It's starting to feel like I stumbled into a an email box full of nothing but urban legend chain emails.

Propaganda is very effective. And the internet is a new vehicle by which to distribute it to the masses.

 

[makhro82]

if in 2013 we can't find it in our hearts and in our wallets to support our society for the betterment of all then I fear we may one day go the way of the French Revolution

Several have posted they wouldn't mind paying "a little more tax to help the poor." What do you define as "a little more?" In Holland, income tax on 0 to $26K salary is 37%. Over that, it rises to 42%. VAT (sort of sales tax) on goods & services: 21%. Dutch taxes are not the most confiscatory in Europe. Forced "helping" to this extreme makes it impossible to increase a family's well-being. Essentially, the gov't tells citizens how much they are allowed to keep from their own toil. Is this fair? Why toil very hard, then, when half is taken away by force, not to mention 21% tax on what you buy or services you contract?

Lincoln again: "The right to freely enjoy the fruits of one's own labor is as much a matter of liberty as any other natural right, and denying it makes slavery a great & crying injustice..."

Makhro, I fully sympathize with your bitterness & anger on the part of your ancestors; I'd feel the same. A "great & crying injustice" it truly was. Unfortunately, however, that does not give descendants of American slaves a lock on mention of the subject. Slavery in various forms is as old as humanity. Slavery is the shifting of the burden of work to the shoulders of another & confiscating the value of his work to oneself. If we can't discuss it, how do we change the world? (And keep this thread from being closed!)

--- Laurie

I'm neither bitter or angry. I don't think I have a lock on the word, however, when someone mentions slavery my mind thinks American slavery and our current situation does not mirror that in any way. People need be more cognizant in their word choices especially in an internet forum where tone and intent are not easily inferred.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="momhappy|1380900051|

That's your perception and that's fine. As a small business owner, I feel that I pay more than my fair share (in taxes, health insurance premiums, etc.). When you've worked hard to earn that money, yes, in some cases it feels like I'm giving it away. And before anyone starts preaching about funding programs that help society/charitable giving, I donate a fairly large portion of money to a select group of charities every year. I would prefer that I pick and choose where/how my money is used as opposed to being forced to participate in wasteful (government) spending like Obamacare....[/quote]


People don't understand that Obamacare will hurt many small business.

 

[msop04]

And as you cast doubt and challenge others to provide their sources, please provide your sources that reference what programs "this administration" (the executive branch, really??) is using to give away cell phones.

ksinger, I was not casting doubt. If you took the time to read my post you would see that I was asking for more info -- "correct me if I'm wrong" -- which I was not wrong about cell phones, as others have stated it started with land lines. Land line, cell phones... both phones. Another reason why I was asking...

And cell phones are not a basic necessity, to be compared to the likes of electricity or running water. Neither my dad nor my grandparents have ever had one, and they aren't living by subpar standards. They'er all still doing just fine.

 

[msop04]

I'm just getting tired of some of the claims I'm reading in these threads. It's starting to feel like I stumbled into a an email box full of nothing but urban legend chain emails.

And, as many will tell you here, it is absolutely your right to get off of it. ...whenever you'd like.

 

[Matata]

Propaganda is very effective. And the internet is a new vehicle by which to distribute it to the masses.

True dat. And this discussion is saturated with truthiness

Any chance we can start sharing ideas on what a decent health care system would look like and how it would be funded? I can't imagine a scenario that would not include some very difficult choices that we may not be prepared to make as a nation and that wouldn't call for an erosion of some things we believe are our right. Got to head out for an appointment. Don't want to share my perspective until I can be here to respond.

 

[ericad]

And as you cast doubt and challenge others to provide their sources, please provide your sources that reference what programs "this administration" (the executive branch, really??) is using to give away cell phones.

ksinger, I was not casting doubt. If you took the time to read my post you would see that I was asking for more info -- "correct me if I'm wrong" -- which I was not wrong about cell phones, as others have stated it started with land lines. Land line, cell phones... both phones. Another reason why I was asking...

And cell phones are not a basic necessity, to be compared to the likes of electricity or running water. Neither my dad nor my grandparents have ever had one, and they aren't living by subpar standards. They'er all still doing just fine.

How does one call 911 without a phone? Scream "911!" out the window?

 

[ericad]

Propaganda is very effective. And the internet is a new vehicle by which to distribute it to the masses.

True dat. And this discussion is saturated with truthiness

Any chance we can start sharing ideas on what a decent health care system would look like and how it would be funded? I can't imagine a scenario that would not include some very difficult choices that we may not be prepared to make as a nation and that wouldn't call for an erosion of some things we believe are our right. Got to head out for an appointment. Don't want to share my perspective until I can be here to respond.

I think it starts with creating a panel to study what is being done successfully in other countries. Then deconstruct the whole damn thing and build it back up, mirroring what others have done. It's quite simple, really.

 

[momhappy]

Some people just don't get it and there's no point in wasting my time or theirs.

Don't get it? Maybe people just don't agree with your opinion. They have the right to their beliefs just as you do to yours. Your statements makes it sound like your way is THE only way.

In no way do I believe my beliefs are the only way. I do believe that if you come from a place of privilege it is harder for you to understand the how many people in America are actually living. There's an idea that people who don't make it aren't working hard or making sacrifices.

Well, according to some posters in this thread, there's also an idea that people who do make it, aren't working hard or making sacrifices. Either way, it sounds like a lose-lose situation. Either you make it or you don't - and your still judged for how you live your life...

 

[Matata]

ksinger, I was not casting doubt. If you took the time to read my post you would see that I was asking for more info -- "correct me if I'm wrong" -- which I was not wrong about cell phones, as others have stated it started with land lines. Land line, cell phones... both phones. Another reason why I was asking...

And cell phones are not a basic necessity, to be compared to the likes of electricity or running water. Neither my dad nor my grandparents have ever had one, and they aren't living by subpar standards. They'er all still doing just fine.

Your glibness and shallow approach to cogent challenges of your ideas are overshadowing your intelligence. Your response to ksinger is childish.

 

[makhro82]

Some people just don't get it and there's no point in wasting my time or theirs.

Don't get it? Maybe people just don't agree with your opinion. They have the right to their beliefs just as you do to yours. Your statements makes it sound like your way is THE only way.

In no way do I believe my beliefs are the only way. I do believe that if you come from a place of privilege it is harder for you to understand the how many people in America are actually living. There's an idea that people who don't make it aren't working hard or making sacrifices.

Well, according to some posters in this thread, there's also an idea that people who do make it, aren't working hard or making sacrifices. Either way, it sounds like a lose-lose situation. Either you make it or you don't - and your still judged for how you live your life...

I believe there are people who work hard and sacrifice and do make it and those who don't do those things and still make it (and I am measuring make it by money). The difference between these two and the people who try and don't is money and the belief that "those"'people didn't make it because they didn't try hard enough.

 

[ericad]

Re: Obamaphones (hard to say that with a straight face), the expansion to cell phones is in lieu of a landline, since many households no longer bother with landlines. Poor people get assistance in obtaining a phone so that they can contact emergency services. The expansion to cell phones actually occurred during Bush's administration. I think we've demonstrated that THIS administration is not responsible for giving free cell phones to needy people.

So...still waiting for examples of what THIS administration has given away to the welfare leeches, please and thank you.

 

[makhro82]

Honestly I don't what can be done with this system because there will always be those of us who believe that healthcare is a right for all and those who believe it is the responsibility of the individual.

I want to live in an America where people genuinely care about the well-being of others. Where helping others is not viewed as what's being taken away from my bottom line but as doing what is needed for the greater good because the situation impacts us all whether it comes in the form of more money in taxes or health care premiums being paid, sick employees missing work, or the spread of germs and disease.