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

[Alan]

I assume also you will be turning down your Medicare and SS benefits when you turn 65 because you don't want other taxpayers funding your retirement or health care in your old age.

Your assumption would be incorrect. I, along with my various employers, have diligently relinquished (through threat of force) a percentage of my compensation for over 40 years to ensure that I may possibly receive a stipend in my declining years. If I had been allowed a choice in the matter, I'm pretty sure I would have kept the money and came out way ahead through diligent investment and planning. Without that choice, I'll take the stipend if it's available. I say that I believe I'd come out way ahead because I've actually done quite well over the long term using portions of my compensation that the government allowed me to keep to fund our post employment life.

It hasn't been easy over the years, but in the end, assuming responsibility for yourself is so much more rewarding.

[try2bfrugal]

Of course, there are many, many reasons 48 million people don't have health insurance. Personal responsibility, or lack thereof, does come into play for a certain percentage of those. Isn't that the sole reason for the individual mandate in the ACA? To force people to do what they should have been doing all along.

Many people can't get insurance now. It is unaffordable or they have pre-existing conditions.

Are you in favor of laws that allow people with pre-existing conditions be allowed to purchase affordable insurance?

[Alan]

Many people can't get insurance now. It is unaffordable or they have pre-existing conditions.

Are you in favor of laws that allow people with pre-existing conditions be allowed to purchase affordable insurance?

Sure, but the entire concept of insurance involves assigning a cost to risk. The higher the risk, the higher the cost, so it's the definition of affordable that would come into play. Is there a formula for that which can be applied across the board without assigning the cost to others who may not be able to comfortably pay it?

[try2bfrugal]

Your assumption would be incorrect. I, along with my various employers, have diligently relinquished (through threat of force) a percentage of my compensation for over 40 years to ensure that I may possibly receive a stipend in my declining years. If I had been allowed a choice in the matter, I'm pretty sure I would have kept the money and came out way ahead through diligent investment and planning. Without that choice, I'll take the stipend if it's available. I say that I believe I'd come out way ahead because I've actually done quite well over the long term using portions of my compensation that the government allowed me to keep to fund our post employment life.

It hasn't been easy over the years, but in the end, assuming responsibility for yourself is so much more rewarding.

Social Security and Medicare are not one for one benefits. They are tax payer funded. You may get more or less back than what you put in. If you had a $1M medical bill, would you turn down your Medicare benefits because you wouldn't want to take money away from other tax payers?

[try2bfrugal]

Sure, but the entire concept of insurance involves assigning a cost to risk. The higher the risk, the higher the cost, so it's the definition of affordable that would come into play. Is there a formula for that which can be applied across the board without assigning the cost to others who may not be able to comfortably pay it?

Almost no one except the very wealthy without employer subsidized health insurance can comfortably pay for it now. Health insurance rates have been sky rocketing in the U.S. for years prior to the ACA.

Also see -

No widespread increase in cost of individual health insurance policies under the ACA

[Spartana]

Why do you say the FT employees will be seeing cost increases because of the ACA? Health insurance rates have been increasing significantly every year lately, ACA or no ACA.

This is what Home Depo said was going to happen to their full time employees - significant cost increases for their share of medical insurance. The 20,000 p/t workers will transistion to Obamacare. Walgreens will cut ALL medical insurance to All it employees and transition them to Obamacare. However they will give their f/t employees an aditional pre-tax amount to help pay for that. I believe that Alan said this is what will be happening the company he works for - dropping their good healthcare plan and transistioning employees to Obamacare with a monthly cash benefit amount (before taxes) to help pay for it.

From Rueters news: "Home Depot employs about 340,000 people and will continue to offer healthcare benefits to full-time employees, who will be paying more for that coverage next year due to higher healthcare costs", Holmes (spokesman for Home Depo) said.

Apparently 120 other large companoies are doing the same - sometimes for full time employees also.

[Spartana]

Keep in mind, countries with government supported health care have much lower overall health care costs. It is how the rest of the developed world works.

Most of those countries have a socialist twist to their economy and can control and regulate how much a private company can charge and how they do business. We don't do that here (and shouldn't imo).

I'd rather see an expanded version of a medicare-type of system for everyone. Flat taxes on everyone's income (like they currently have to pay for medicare for employed people), flat rate "affordable" monthly premiums that are not dependant on income or assets (like they currently have for medicare reciepients - lower income/asset people can be subsidied on a sliding scale), have HMO type cost shares with co-payments for services (like most medicare programs have) or do a PPO system with a percent of treatment payed for by the patient (like all medicare systems have now - again, low income/low asset people can get subsidized on a sliding scale), the govmint can act as a noin-profit insurance provider and contract out to medical facilities and Drs for care (like they currently do for medicare, medicaid, military Tricare and Champus, etc..), and private insurers can offer suplimental insurance or even complete alternative coverage (like medicare advantage programs currently do), and compete with government for a share of the health insurance business.

This will probably keep costs low like in other countries since people will have an option to go back to straight medicare-type system rather then pay ever increasing costs by non- government-contractor private insurers. And private insurers, knowing this, will be more likely to keep costs low. Yet the private insurers will still remain free to do business with minimal government interference or regulations on who and what they take and charge for services. You can eliminate the redundant systems like medicare, medicaid, the VA system, etc... That is what other countries do and that can keep costs alot lower for everyone because you are no longer holding people hostage with no choice but to accept the exorbitant price increases and all other bad things private insurers do. "Spartanacare?" - a free death panel for all :-)!

[Spartana]

Why wouldn't someone who is unemplyed be able to signup for ACA mandated health insurance? It's required.

Maybe I am missing your question entirely.

I read somewhere "official" like somewhere in the "act" itself that if you voluntarily quit your job that has employer paid for insurance you can not go on Obamacare. If you are already unemployed or will be laid off you can. I also heard this on a radio show about the ACA. Don't know if that's true or not though. I also read something about how you can only sign up during the open enrollment period (which is until April 2014 I believe) and unless you life circumstances change - like a non-voluntary job loss - then you can't enroll until next open enrollment. I'll see if I can find out more (limited internet time for this Luddite ya know :-)!). I did download the Calif application and explanation out of curisoity after reading the OPs (Frugalone's) post here. So maybe something is written about it there. After reading it I can see how it is both very simple and very confusing for many people. Even myself, who would only qualify for medicaid and not the subsidies, got a bit confused. The plans don't look very good either. I had better coverage for a lot less with my barebones Blue Cross plan (that I have now dropped!).

[Spartana]

How about requiring that just those who receive health insurance with heavy subsidies,say, 50% and more are required to travel to Mexico for their care. What say you about that?

Funny you mention this. I saw a tv show the other night that was about how employers are giving their employees the option for out-of-country medical care and operations rather than having them use their employer paid for medical insurance. This saved the employee several thousand in co-pays (they usually had no out-of-pocket costs), and saved the company increases in it's medical insurances plans, and the employers even gave the employees a $2500 bonus for using out-of-country medical services. The ones they showed had surguries in Costa Rica. Probably a new and growing trend amost employers.

[try2bfrugal]

Most of those countries have a socialist twist to their economy

By "those countries", you mean the ones with some form of universal care, which refers to almost all of the countries in the developed world other than the U.S.?