Obamacare, or, I might be up a creek w/o a paddle

I never paid much attention to the whole Affordable Health Care thing, because we have an "OK" plan through BC/BS that is kind of bare-bones, but has been alright so far. My employer offers insurance, but it would be a real stretch to be able to afford it.

Well, yesterday we got a letter from BC/BS with the bad news: They are dropping our special program. And there are five brochures full of info about their "new plans"--with outrageous prices (funnily enough, they are only listing prices for individuals, not couples or families) and ridiculous deductibles. I realize we need to talk directly to our insurer to get a clear picture, but I am having a very rough time trying not to flip out/panic over this. Financially, I just can't take another hit. As I said in another thread, what good does tax credit do if you can't pay the premiums in the first place?

I also realize this is a giant piece of propaganda. I mean, our government is threatening to shut down over this whole Obamacare thing. And also, could there be better plans out there? Won't the insurance companies all be competing for business? Shouldn't this bring the cost of insurance down?

Am I the only one who feels this way? Maybe I'm getting the wrong picture here...but I thought the whole point was Affordable Health Care! Not sock it to the already working poor.

Sorry for the little rant. It's just been very rough for me lately.

The problem is, the Affordable Care Act doesn't allow 'bare bones' coverage. It sets a minimum standard which everyone must purchase in order to spread the costs around. A perfect example of the old adage, "be careful what you wish for".

Alan, I didn't know that. I thought the idea was just to provide everyone with SOME sort of coverage, rather than having a large amount of uninsured. I seem to fall somewhere in the middle. Our household income is too high for us to get any kind of public "relief" and it's too low for me to comfortably afford the premiums. I'm lucky that my employer does offer some sort of insurance. But it's quite clear from the large leap in price that I can see on the forms at work that they do NOT want to pay for family members. They're more than happy to just cover the employee--but add a family member (or two or three) and the price skyrockets.

And the perfect argument for universal coverage & single payer. I too am facing a hefty premium increase, and got some details from my insurer (I am currently private pay). There are 10 required to cover items, including maternity and pediatric dental & vision. I don't need either! But I do understand the necessity under this design to create a huge pool to spread costs around, as Alan said. It is a very conservative, Republican plan, which preserves the huge profits for insurance companies at the expense of individuals. I am glad that coverage cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Health care needs to be taken out of the for-profit commodities market -- there are many things appropriate to this market, but not basic human needs.

I have hopefully solved my dilemma as a private pay individual. I have a job offer on the table, which I'll finalize tomorrow. It is at less than half my usual salary, but comes with good health insurance with my current providers, which, if one has been in treatment for cancer & finds good providers, is immeasurably valuable. I am taking the position for the health insurance... and the promise that after Jan. 1, the job will change upwards with a concomitant pay increase.

Wow, this is more complicated than I thought. If it's a conservative plan, why are the Republicans arguing against it? It's not "socialistic" at all.
And I use those terms loosely, of course.

The bare bones plans were never that great to begin with IMO. The majority of people filing for medical bankruptcy have insurance, wonder how much bare bones plans have to do with that.

But anyway, Obamacare, not a fan, but just to give actual advice: as I understand it you can go on the exchange(s) and look at the prices that other insurance companies are charging, plus unless your income is too high, you probably qualify for a subsidy to purchase that insurance. Yes, you're probably better off if you happen to be in a blue state as they are kind trying to make this work. But in short: do the research to make sure you fully understand what your options actually are, part of Obamacare was hiring people to help people navigate it (yea I know why do we have people to help people navigate the Obamacare maze rather than Medicare for all, that everyone could understand easily - don't ask me - I'm just saying how to make the best use you can of the system, such as it is, even if it's not a good system). And yea you may find your employer provided insurance is the best bet, it often is if they're picking up some of the cost. I don't actually know if you can get both the employer subsidy and an Obamacare subsidy at the same time.

Quote:

---

I also realize this is a giant piece of propaganda. I mean, our government is threatening to shut down over this whole Obamacare thing.

---

Could be. Maybe blue cross wasn't one of the insurance companies in on the Obamacare discussions (insurance companies were definitely part of the drafting of Obamacare), or even if they were, honor among theives you know. :)

Quote:

---

And also, could there be better plans out there? Won't the insurance companies all be competing for business? Shouldn't this bring the cost of insurance down?

---

I dont' know, it's kinda doubtful private insurance can work at all, or the at least on the for profit model (plus with our ridiculously inflated hospitalization and pharma costs).

Quote:

---

Am I the only one who feels this way? Maybe I'm getting the wrong picture here...but I thought the whole point was Affordable Health Care! Not sock it to the already working poor.

---

there seems to be people it benefits and people it hurts (and many people whom it probably doesn't affect much one way or other). It definitely hurts people who say had really good union plans. Those are no more, and those were really enviable plans that actually got the whole healthcare thing right, probably in one of the few ways it could be gotten right short of socialized medicine. But most people weren't one of those lucky ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugalone

Wow, this is more complicated than I thought. If it's a conservative plan, why are the Republicans arguing against it? It's not "socialistic" at all.
And I use those terms loosely, of course.

---

Well, what a good question! Since it was modeled on Romney's plan, the GOP nominee, it doesn't seem to be about the plan itself. I am beginning to suspect it's simply because That Black Dude in the White House put it forth. It is definitely not "socialistic"! (One of the sillier words to come about lately, too.)

Quote:

---

I thought the idea was just to provide everyone with SOME sort of coverage, rather than having a large amount of uninsured.

---

The projections for Obamacare are and pretty much always have been: there will still be uninsured, but the number of uninsured is predicted to be less than it would be otherwise. The uninsured are not going away though. In addition many people will be under-insured (insured but with junky policies).

Quote:

---

I seem to fall somewhere in the middle. Our household income is too high for us to get any kind of public "relief" and it's too low for me to comfortably afford the premiums. I'm lucky that my employer does offer some sort of insurance.

---

The income to qualify for some kind of subsidy goes pretty high in most parts of the country (it doesn't work out so favorably in high cost of living areas of course).

"Anyone earning up to 400% of the poverty line will be eligible for a subsidy, which is up to $45,960 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four."

But yea earning 50k in say California would not make one rich, and if one was also older the full cost of premiums could run over 1k a month. In that situation it might not be a bad decision if one earned too much to get a job paying just under the subsidy limit so at least your premium would be capped at some $300 a month, rather than having no caps at all.

Quote:

---

But it's quite clear from the large leap in price that I can see on the forms at work that they do NOT want to pay for family members. They're more than happy to just cover the employee--but add a family member (or two or three) and the price skyrockets.

---

oh yea that's always been what I've seen from employer provided insurance pricing. And I'm always just: ok how does anyone actually afford to live with kids (and especially with a non-working spouse). Haha, if that was me, I'd me I'd tell the spouse: get a job with health insurance or get out of the house! And then I'd tell the kids the same thing! Ok I'm kidding about the kids :). But while it's obvious to me how I can afford to live as a single, it's not clear to me how anyone can afford their health insurance paying for a whole family.

Quote:

---

Wow, this is more complicated than I thought. If it's a conservative plan, why are the Republicans arguing against it? It's not "socialistic" at all.
And I use those terms loosely, of course.

---

Isn't it the Heritage center (conservative think tank) plan originally? It's also Romneycare. They're playing politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

The problem is, the Affordable Care Act doesn't allow 'bare bones' coverage. It sets a minimum standard which everyone must purchase in order to spread the costs around. A perfect example of the old adage, "be careful what you wish for".

---

+1000

Been doing some reading online.
Yeah, I think we're screwed in my household.

I see how this works. As long as my (and that's MY) coverage isn't more than 9.5% of my salary, then that's supposedly cool. However, when you add in my spouse, that makes it unaffordable.

Yeah, I do wonder how people with kids manage to pay for it. Even WITH a working spouse, it's still tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Well, what a good question! Since it was modeled on Romney's plan, the GOP nominee, it doesn't seem to be about the plan itself. I am beginning to suspect it's simply because That Black Dude in the White House put it forth. It is definitely not "socialistic"! (One of the sillier words to come about lately, too.)

---

LOL, I'm sorry but I find this extremely amusing. It is fairly socialistic and the Mass legislature over-rode Romney's veto of the 8 or 10 most intrusive elements of the legislation which eventually became known as Romneycare.

And, the 'Black Dude in the White House' narrative is simply precious.

I remember when a couple of posters here from the state of Mass. talked about their state required insurance. I found that interesting, and I remember when one of them complained about having to drop his/her high deducible plan to take a plan that covered all of the requirement of the state. That was the harbinger of this requirement in ObamaCare, so I wasn't surprised when this issue came forward in recent months.

I found the Mass. experiment to be interesting and useful to watch from afar, but I thought it was too bad that high deductibles plans are out the window since I think that the average American needs to plan for and pay for routine medical care. In my mind it's just bad philosophy to expect insurance to pay for it all.

That said, ObamaCare does allow for 4 levels of insurance (bronze, silver, gold and platinum (?) so there remains some level of choice in the deal.

Remember that birth control pills must be covered. Even if one would prefer to pay for them yourself and have a high deductible, that choice is not yours to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Well, what a good question! Since it was modeled on Romney's plan, the GOP nominee, it doesn't seem to be about the plan itself. I am beginning to suspect it's simply because That Black Dude in the White House put it forth. It is definitely not "socialistic"! (One of the sillier words to come about lately, too.)

---

If you guys want to toss around labels, ok whatever. I don't see the point, but go for it.

It is obvious to me that any government mandated endeavor to make everyone play in the same health sandbox is a socialist concept. But since I don't much care about labels, you can win the point if you like. I am kind like that. :) It's the substance of the legislation that irks me.

edited to add:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialist

shows that the word was not invented last week by the Tea Partiers as redfox implies, but instead, is an adjective that's been around as long as the concept of socialism.

Please, let's not turn this thread into an argument about the two houses or Obama or anything like that.
I'm sitting here having a hard time breathing and keeping my head because of this.
Like, on the verge of a panic attack.
I didn't mean to incite a riot.

Nah, it's not socialist, SOCIALIST not socialistic, by any measure I'd use -mostly who owns the means of production right.

so·cial·ism
noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. (yea you can have fun with the vagueness of this description but unless you really want to start citing arguments from Marx's writings about socialism and I can't claim to be an expert on that, you are probably NOT adequately arguing it's socialism based on this definition).

So what part of private insurance companies, private hospitals, private pharma companies with capitalist shareholders is socialist? Now it may be a plenty crony kind of capitalism (which seems quite common in capitalism, fancy that, in fact much of the economic system except for some small businesses these days seems pretty crony to me) but .... not socialist. While socialized medicine in some cases may actually be socialist (the British model) private insurance companies are not.

ANM, that fact that citizens are required by Nanny G to use the private businesses, the fact that the private business MUST serve all, and the fact the tax money is funding part of this mandate, those are the socialist(ic) parts.

It's a gory mix of capitalism, socialism, and stupidityism, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

Please, let's not turn this thread into an argument about the two houses or Obama or anything like that.
I'm sitting here having a hard time breathing and keeping my head because of this.
Like, on the verge of a panic attack.
I didn't mean to incite a riot.

---

You really do need to do further research to make sure you are aware of all your options. Mind you it's not easy to do more research if there is a possibility there may be no good solution anyway (pretty much how I feel about Fukushima). And I never promised you an Obama pony :laff: I've warned people that guy isn't all he seems. But if Obamacare has supposedly hired people who are supposed to help people navigate Obamacare ...

But vent if need be, vent about the horror of the worst case scenario and how frustrating Obamacare is (it's difficulty to understand is not the least of it's frustrations! plus losing a healthcare plan you at least kind of understood), but eventually maybe talk to people who are knowledgeable on the ins and outs of Obamacare just in case there might be a good (or maybe at least not terrible, maybe that's the best we can expect :)) option for you.

I got a long Obamacare pdf from HR that I haven't even read, mostly because I don't think Obamacare will affect employer provided insurance (except that prices will keep going up probably just like they did before Obamacare and this is not good!), but if it does change my employer provided coverage, then I guess that wouldn't be good.

I will add a random observation today, the day that Breaking Bad airs its final episode. I don't want to de-rail the Breaking Bad thread with Obama politics.

But it amuses me that the pseudo-reason cooked up by BB Hollywood writers for Walter White to go into the meth business is that he couldn't afford the cancer treatments recommended by his doctor. And then, a few seasons later, same thing for his brother in law Hank.

These guys are both public employees who have the best health insurance available. This is teevee B.S. and as such is unbelievable.

But I can suspend disbelief with the best of them because Breaking Bad is a fine piece of entertainment.

Are you guys with private pay or unaffordable employer insurance looking at your state's health insurance exchanges for premium rates? Do you know what your subsidy amounts will be? I am having a hard time believing with some of the household incomes posted frequently on this forum that many of you will not get highly subsidized plans.

Look at your state exchanges or use the Kaiser calculator and see what rates you will be paying. For a family of four there are significant subsidies for households making up to 400% of poverty level which is over $90K.

The Kaiser estimator is here -
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

And you do not have to wait until you file your tax returns to get the subsidy credits.

In my state and zip code, 2 people aged 35 with a $35K modified adjusted gross income could get a Bronze policy for $33 a month.

Iris Lilies - The teachers in our public school district do not have employer health insurance, even those teaching at schools in the affluent (> $100K household income) zip codes.

Here is a UK version of Breaking Bad -

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/if...-set-in-the-uk

I believe I am in the 200% range. However, the language reads "and you would have to pay more than 9.5% of your household income for your own coverage through the insurance offered by your employer." It wouldn't be more than 9.5% for MY coverage, but add in other family members and it becomes very high.

I am wondering how the government hopes this plan will cover non-working spouses. Or non-working partners in homosexual couples who live in states that do not currently have legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Or how about people who are unemployed and have no income? My COBRA ran out and my UC benefits did too. That's how I got on the bare-bones program. We didn't qualify for public health insurance, either.

Hi--do you mind if I ask which state you are in?
How much are the deductibles for that Bronze plan. Just curious. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

In my state and zip code, 2 people aged 35 with a $35K modified adjusted gross income could get a Bronze policy for $33 a month.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugalone

Or how about people who are unemployed and have no income?

---

They would get free health care under Medicaid for states that have this option in place.

Here is a state by state list of where that stands -

http://kff.org/health-reform/state-i...able-care-act/

I am in California. You can look up the deductibles on the Covered California exchange site. But if you live somewhere else it doesn't matter what the California rates are unless you are planning a move. Deductibles are highest on the Bronze plans, but if you are healthy and a low consumer of medical care, they might be your optimal option.

You might still be able to get exchange rates if "..your employer will offer family coverage, however, your family's eligibility for subsidized coverage on the exchanges will depend on whether your job-based coverage is considered unaffordable or inadequate under the law. If the cost for single coverage is more than 9.5 percent of your income or the policy doesn't cover at least 60 percent of your allowed medical costs, your whole family could be eligible for subsidized coverage on the exchange.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/feat...-exchange.aspx

You can call and ask the exchange advisers after October 1st and see if there is anything they can do for you based on your current employer coverage options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugalone

I believe I am in the 200% range. However, the language reads "and you would have to pay more than 9.5% of your household income for your own coverage through the insurance offered by your employer." It wouldn't be more than 9.5% for MY coverage, but add in other family members and it becomes very high.

I am wondering how the government hopes this plan will cover non-working spouses. Or non-working partners in homosexual couples who live in states that do not currently have legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Or how about people who are unemployed and have no income? My COBRA ran out and my UC benefits did too. That's how I got on the bare-bones program. We didn't qualify for public health insurance, either.

---

Frugal, unfortunately I think I heard somewhere/read somewhere that your situation is an unintended flaw in the way the law was written. The intention was for it to be 9.5% of total household income to cover the whole household, but it ended up being for the individual, even though that individual is financially responsible for the rest of the household.

As for homosexual (or heterosexual) non-married domestic partners I would assume that the non-working one would be able to qualify for subsidies based on their own income or lack thereof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Frugal, unfortunately I think I heard somewhere/read somewhere that your situation is an unintended flaw in the way the law was written. The intention was for it to be 9.5% of total household income to cover the whole household, but it ended up being for the individual, even though that individual is financially responsible for the rest of the household.

As for homosexual (or heterosexual) non-married domestic partners I would assume that the non-working one would be able to qualify for subsidies based on their own income or lack thereof.

---

Yes, I see that written up here -

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ssues/2804017/

It was a wording error in the law that has not been fixed to date.

for more fun and games, go on over to my thread in Workplace called "raises" and read about how my small raise will most likely put me outside the federal poverty level and other complications.

I'm really, really trying not to freak out about this...since I can't get any solid info till Oct. anyway.

Looks like that USA Today article is accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugalone

for more fun and games, go on over to my thread in Workplace called "raises" and read about how my small raise will most likely put me outside the federal poverty level and other complications.

I'm really, really trying not to freak out about this...since I can't get any solid info till Oct. anyway.

Looks like that USA Today article is accurate.

---

The ACA is based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), not gross income, so it may be possible to reduce your MAGI by making a 401K or IRA deduction, if that ends up helping.

Sorry to hear about your situation, frugalone. I did not know about the wording glitch until this thread.

I'm thinking I might need to see an accountant. Currently, I don't make any retirement contributions--because I can't really afford to.

Another fun unintended consequence:

I am in the middle of hiring an employee for a governmental organization. While the organization has the same powers and authority as an incorporated city, it is a quite small organization - one minion (already hired) and one manager (the new hire) to replace a retiring employee.

This small of a governmental entity, for a variety of reasons, cannot participate in the state employees' health program, which is quite good. Our normal practice to date has been to cover "90% of the cost of whatever health insurance you can find that is roughly similar in coverage to the state program".

We cannot make an intelligible offer to any of our candidates - they ask what the health coverage is, and we have no clarity on what we can provide them at present.

So this makes it very difficult to hire anyone, even though we have a position available, and interested candidates. And it would be "bad" to not fill this position, as it is the manager of a commercial service airport...

Something I am learning about ObamaCare - not everyone shares my economic reality. This has been a hard pill to swallow, it really has. Coming from an economically challenged background to put it nicely, I see the ACA as a miracle. The fact that I am going to qualify for expanded Medicaid is just unbelievable to me. It really is and given that I would have health care automatically in any other developed country, to me it is both reality that is long overdue and it is a real trial to find forgiveness for America that until very recently, human life has not been worth something like the ACA. This is my reality - I really don't know how to forgive America for this.

BUT OTOH, not everyone shares my reality. I wonder if I had experienced more economic stability in my life, and if I had had insurance coverage non-stop, would I see things differently? I'm guessing I very well might. I believe my take on ObamaCare given my background is valid - but why should the takes of those who have lived much more stable lives and have not know the fear of not having insurance be any less valid? Like so many other things, I am seeing this as a social class issue.

Even more interesting - my goal is to make enough money to move off of Medicaid and get onto the exchages as self employed person. Two things here that strike me - I am so so so very grateful that via ObamaCare insurance is starting to de-link even more from the workplace.....and that I can get onto a policy with pre-existing conditions. To me this is indeed miraculous. OTOH, I see some unpleasant deductible numbers which makes me realize that my days of going to Mexico for health care are not over. ObamaCare for me is going to be a sleep better at night kind of thing but I still will be comparing costs to Mexico - once I move off of Medicaid, which I don't care to stay on for a long period of time, as I want my income to increase.

So my big shocker here is that I understand not everyone shares my reality as not everyone shares my economic background.....Very interesting. To those who don't share it with me, all I can do is ask that you understand that not everyone shares your economic background and therefore there are those who are going to view ObamaCare very differently. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

...Like so many other things, I am seeing this as a social class issue...

---

And I see this as a "choices we've made" issue.

For sure we are going to view this and many things differently.

Gee, Rob, tell that to part-time Trader Joes employees who have now lost their employer-provided health insurance.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/17...r-part-timers/

Or those who buy private insurance who are now facing much higher rates because of Obamacare.

I know many people who originally thought Obamacare was a good thing. But due to the "unintended consequences," they are now, to put it bluntly, screwed.

It's affecting the finances of one couple so badly, they are investigating going to the husband's home country (UK) and the wife renouncing her American citizenship. I have no details about their situation, other than what's in the previous sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tradd

Gee, Rob, tell that to part-time Trader Joes employees who have now lost their employer-provided health insurance.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/17...r-part-timers/

Or those who buy private insurance who are now facing much higher rates because of Obamacare.

I know many people who originally thought Obamacare was a good thing. But due to the "unintended consequences," they are now, to put it bluntly, screwed.

It's affecting the finances of one couple so badly, they are investigating going to the husband's home country (UK) and the wife renouncing her American citizenship. I have no details about their situation, other than what's in the previous sentence.

---

Tradd, correct me if I am wrong.....I understand that in the Trader Joes instance, the workers are being pushed onto the health care exchanges, and since they are PT, they are more than likely going to get heavy subsidation, so what the actually pay for premiums is not going to be all that bad. They are also getting a one time check of $500 from Trader Joes to help with premiums. If they end out paying something like $78 a month, that $500 will go a long way in covering them. I would not be at all surprised to see more companies doing this and I for one embrace this as it means not having health insurance linked to employment. Just think! This means that you need you employer a little less if you have some savings! To me this is incredible.....but then the American work ethic, work above most all else, has never worked for me either, so it's only natural I'd want insurance to be separate from work. Rob

Tradd. also I forgot to mention, in the case of the married couple debating moving to England and the wife giving up her US citizenship - how ironic that the UK has socialized medicine. They would be moving to a place with socialized medicine due to changes in US laws trying to get more of the population covered! What bitter irony this must be for them if they have realized it/seen it. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tradd

Or those who buy private insurance who are now facing much higher rates because of Obamacare.

---

I pay for my family's own, minimal, catastrophic coverage out-of-pocket.

Shortly after Obamacare was passed into law, my rates went through the roof, seemingly because they raised them the maximum they could get away with, and at every opportunity after that. Presumably to establish a nice solid baseline before the law went into effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tradd

Gee, Rob, tell that to part-time Trader Joes employees who have now lost their employer-provided health insurance.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/17...r-part-timers/

---

If frugalone's employer stopped offering insurance like Trader Joe's did, she could get a better deal on the exchanges. Trader Joe's did their part time employees a favor by not offering them health insurance any more. Now most can get better, highly subsidized insurance on the exchanges, instead of the inferior policy that was the best TJ's could offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tradd

It's affecting the finances of one couple so badly, they are investigating going to the husband's home country (UK) and the wife renouncing her American citizenship. I have no details about their situation, other than what's in the previous sentence.

---

If you have no idea about their situation, then what is your point, other than they are better off moving to a country with universal health care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

To me this is incredible.....but then the American work ethic, work above most all else, has never worked for me either, so it's only natural I'd want insurance to be separate from work. Rob

---

And luckily for you, you can now simply add the cost of your healthcare to my tab. Would it be out of place for me to ask that you exercise more and eat better, you know, positive steps to limit my liability?

More employees going part time is not a good idea unless they have the hourly rate to support themselves on that. Sure people that bring in money might be ok with going part time, because they can afford it.

Quote:

---

..Like so many other things, I am seeing this as a social class issue...

---

Quote:

---

And I see this as a "choices we've made" issue.

---

For many people it's not a choice, someone growing up in the ghetto to a crackhead mom probably never had a chance anyway (and the worst of them don't end up complaining about healthcare, but end up behind bars - where hey they do have full healthcare - yea we better all envy them >8)). There's very little that is a choice as life progresses quickly and most decisions that actually matter are made very early on (long before you've worked out the damage of your upbringing). The only ones that genuinely annoy me are those who deliberately chose lower paying jobs than they could get and then want to complain about it. Basically people who had advantages and deliberately throw them away and then complain. The advance degree set are especially ridiculous since I've always did whatever I had to survive in this world without that stuff (though I do realize it is harder for young people these days, so I'll cut a certain handicap for being a 20 something :)).

The thing is absolutely noone would care about these issues at all with regard to medical care if there was good Medicare for all that they knew they qualified by merely by being a citizen, because then they'd be benefiting too, but hey if you have to create a system written by the insurance companies with weird subsidies that creates winners and losers (almost randomly), what do you expect really.