My experience with ObamaCare thus far.....

[Zoebird]

... get there and how things are.

Things are actually really nice. Yes, like everywhere, there are problems, struggles, etc. BUT, at the end of the day, you know, it's actually just as nice living here in NZ as it is living in the US.

And, I would have stayed here had immigration decided that we could stay (policy change, so we can't). So, we're heading back to the US.

Luckily, DH is now juggling two interview processes (he's at step 3 of both of these), and just got an interview for a third job (first interview). So, we are excited that things are starting to sort out a bit.

I'm also glad that we can afford health care. I wrote in the other thread that before the exchange, we found a good coverage for our family for $335/mo, and then when I checked that same web site after the exchange opened, the price is now $270/mo. So, positives all around for us. Havent' checked the exchange yet because it was overloaded and I couldn't make the account, etc.

So, yeah, there we are.

[try2bfrugal]

We don't cotton to freeloaders.

Freeloaders! Off with their heads!

I guess that is one way to characterize close to 50 million people, one fifth of those children -

http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php

I am glad most other countries take a kinder view, and that the tide seems to be changing in the U.S. for the better starting with more affordable health care, especially for those hard workers who are trying to support themselves and maybe their families as well on minimum wage pay.

[dmc]

I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone I know believes in providing some kind of assistance. Of course, I don't know everyone, so there very well may be those kinds of people out there, but I don't think the view is prevalent.

The difference I was alluding to (and the one Rob seems to have no problem with) is the entitlement mentality, i.e. the degree to which people who want things but can't afford them should expect others to pay for them. It's one thing to look at the system in the abstract and say "how can we design this so it works for everyone." Few people would object to that. More people object when they perceive others to be manipulating the system for personal benefit. I personally prefer a system where people are motivated to be productive, not just see how much they can extract from others whenever they can't pay for what they want. I think that has been the national character for some time. We don't cotton to freeloaders.

This!

[dmc]

Things are actually really nice. Yes, like everywhere, there are problems, struggles, etc. BUT, at the end of the day, you know, it's actually just as nice living here in NZ as it is living in the US.

And, I would have stayed here had immigration decided that we could stay (policy change, so we can't). So, we're heading back to the US.

Luckily, DH is now juggling two interview processes (he's at step 3 of both of these), and just got an interview for a third job (first interview). So, we are excited that things are starting to sort out a bit.

I'm also glad that we can afford health care. I wrote in the other thread that before the exchange, we found a good coverage for our family for $335/mo, and then when I checked that same web site after the exchange opened, the price is now $270/mo. So, positives all around for us. Havent' checked the exchange yet because it was overloaded and I couldn't make the account, etc.

So, yeah, there we are.

Happy things are working out for you. I'm sure you'll land on your feet.

[try2bfrugal]

I suggest people here check out the exchange for their state and see if they are eligible for subsidized coverage -

"A survey last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that three out of four Californians who earn modest incomes and could buy government-subsidized private coverage wrongly believe they’re not eligible for federal assistance or they simply don’t know if they qualify.

The survey found only half of newly eligible low-income Californians are aware that they will qualify for expanded Medi-Cal in California — the government program for the poor."

http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-tw...ealth-insuran/

Don't just believe the Fox News and Tea Party disinformation campaigns. Check it out for yourself and see. You might be pleasantly surprised.

[try2bfrugal]

I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone I know believes in providing some kind of assistance. Of course, I don't know everyone, so there very well may be those kinds of people out there, but I don't think the view is prevalent.

The difference I was alluding to (and the one Rob seems to have no problem with) is the entitlement mentality, i.e. the degree to which people who want things but can't afford them should expect others to pay for them. It's one thing to look at the system in the abstract and say "how can we design this so it works for everyone." Few people would object to that. More people object when they perceive others to be manipulating the system for personal benefit. I personally prefer a system where people are motivated to be productive, not just see how much they can extract from others whenever they can't pay for what they want. I think that has been the national character for some time. We don't cotton to freeloaders.

A few more interesting finds in regards to your freeloaders comment -


"Almost two-thirds of uninsured Americans have a full-time job, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A further 16 percent are employed part time.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently estimated that nearly six in 10 uninsured Americans could qualify for health coverage in the insurance market for less than $100 per person per month.


According to an analysis by the Urban Institute, 28 million Americans would gain health insurance under Obamacare. Of these, eight million earn more than twice the poverty level of $47,100 for a family of four. A majority of those would get a subsidy to buy a plan.


As it turns out, the core Tea Party demographic — working white men between the ages of 45 and 64 — would do fairly well under the law. "

From the New York Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/bu...oofinance&_r=0

[gimmethesimplelife]

Well Rob I guess it was the different way we were raised. When I was a kid I was always expected to work and pull my own weight. I was told that if things didn't turn out the way that you had planned. Maybe you didn't plan very well. You saved for a rainy day and you invested your money for it to grow. We were charitable, but never expected anyone to take care of us. If someone was doing better than us, good for them. We didn't expect them to give part of their earnings to us.

You make choices and you have to live with them. No one else is out to get you. And no one should be expected to take care of you.

And we even had guns at an early age and except for a few birds, rabbits, and squirrels, no one got hurt.

You state that your only here because of what you can get. That's the free cheese. You have made a choice in your employment. But want others to subsidize you. I understand it, but don't understand your claiming the moral high ground when you just want someone else to pay your way.

We were both raised very differently, I can see that now. I'm not saying that I am against the way you were raised per se - but I am against this kind of thinking. And I don't believe anyone is out to get me, either, I really don't understand where you deduced that?

To sum it up - I was raised to believe in the collective good of society and not so much that of the individual. Being raised in such a way, you don't mind being taxed much, as you understand that taxation is a price tag for living in a civilized society. You don't mind generous social welfare either - as everyone participates in it. Case in point - one of my relatives in Austria two years ago was granted a weeks stay at a health spa due to work stress - completely paid for by the government. This is not considered abuse of the system or gaming the system, and this person in America would be considered pushing upper middle class. There are many such other perks that are underwritten by the government, and everyone can get them at one time or another. I understand that this is not going to happen in America - which I think is so, so, so sad. I am grateful I chose not to see things the way most Americans do.

I don't really think the way you described being raised is wrong per se, but the thinking it can lead to seems to lead to the justification of inequalities in society, and that is something very much I am not OK with. Basically in many ways America has never really worked for me, and the latest is this government showdown which to me anyway, proves how little human life is valued in this country - due to the fact that it is over a law granting health insurance to more people. I don't see that as gaming the system - I see covering more people as taking care of the collective society, so to me a government shutdown over such really shows me how little the collective society means in America. And I don't see this as "someone taking care of me", I see it as a moral obligation to cover all citizens for the collective good of society.

So, really the way you think, at least as exhibited here, and the way I think are - to be put nicely - very widely divergent. I don't even think you are wrong per se - certainly I support your right to think this way - I just don't care for the kind of society this kind of thinking seems to produce. It just doesn't work very well overall for me. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Well Rob I guess it was the different way we were raised. When I was a kid I was always expected to work and pull my own weight. I was told that if things didn't turn out the way that you had planned. Maybe you didn't plan very well. You saved for a rainy day and you invested your money for it to grow. We were charitable, but never expected anyone to take care of us. If someone was doing better than us, good for them. We didn't expect them to give part of their earnings to us.

You make choices and you have to live with them. No one else is out to get you. And no one should be expected to take care of you.

And we even had guns at an early age and except for a few birds, rabbits, and squirrels, no one got hurt.

You state that your only here because of what you can get. That's the free cheese. You have made a choice in your employment. But want others to subsidize you. I understand it, but don't understand your claiming the moral high ground when you just want someone else to pay your way.

It's about much more to me than "free cheese". Its about the collective good of society and our duty to each other in continuing to make a civilized society work. In Western Europe, basically everyone subsidizes each other and there is a long list of social welfare benefits all can take advantage of, of which there is no stigma, no thoughts of no one should be expected to take care of you.

It goes much much much further than being here because of what you can get. For me, it's also about how much does society care about the collective good? How much does society value persons who are downtrodden for some reason? How much do we care about our fellow man/woman/child? Gotta tell you as far as in America, the answer for most seems to be not very much. I've got mine - go away and get yours. I'm not OK with that kind of thinking and never have been and hope never to be.

NOW AS FAR AS WORK GOES = I do believe to get all these perks one should be contributing some kind of value to society to justify the perks. I am not talking of sitting on your butt and collecting checks. If no work is available, I am not against able bodied folks planting trees or working at a food bank full time to justify their social welfare. Why is it that when many Americans hear of how I think, they seem to think I am OK with people doing nothing to collect checks? That's not in my line of thinking. One of my relatives in Graz, Austria is disabled and can't really do a standard office job or physical work but does stay at home watching children in the neighborhood and also does some painting of tacky touristy items for a program to keep her productive to some level to justify the generous checks she gets. I see nothing wrong with this arrangement.

As to folks getting something like food stamps here, the five months I was on them I was not required to work for them and (DONT DROP DEAD OF SHOCK HERE) I think that's wrong. I am not against a requirement to work at least P/T at a foodbank to justify collecting the foodstamps - I was getting $200 a month at the time and to me some work requirement to stay at this level, in some kind of environment such as a food bank - this would be fair and just in my line of thinking.

Something else I believe about ObamaCare - I would not be against ObamaCare covering herbal medicine, and I don't think it's wrong to require those of us with some yard space such as myself to grow a plot of herbs to donate to covering herbal medicine. Or maybe requiring a few hours a month of work at a public garden that grows herbs for herbal medicine. To me, to require such would be good for the collective good of society, and would run counter to the image of folks collecting checks/getting generous social welfare for nothing. Rob

[catherine]

"Gaming the system" related to healthcare suggests to me that you willingly get sick so that you can "cash in" on treatment.

So to "earn" the right to actually get treated for your condition under the current system without being considered a freeloader you have to:

a) Sign up for the golden handcuffs of employee-based insurance. Now you are tethered to your job, with little "incentive" for the "productivity" of entrepreneurship. You are a cog in the wheel, dreams dashed, because your family depends on Daddy Corp for affordable healthcare

b) Buy healthcare on your own through private companies. Oops. You had a diagnosis once that suggests to the profit-making insurance companies that you might actually COST them money. Sorry. No insurance for you. Or, yes, you "get accepted"! Happy day! You now have earned the privilege of paying more than your mortgage payment on a monthly basis for your insurance.

c) Go without healthcare. Why not "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and simply save up the money for a little rainy day of cancer or diabetes? You do have that American Dream of a McMansion--just go sell it. It MIGHT cover your medical expenses as long as you're not underwater on your mortgage.

Gee, now that Obamacare is here, I can't WAIT til I get sick so I can finally abuse the system and live off of you healthy taxpayers. Life is good!

[gimmethesimplelife]

"Gaming the system" related to healthcare suggests to me that you willingly get sick so that you can "cash in" on treatment.

So to "earn" the right to actually get treated for your condition under the current system without being considered a freeloader you have to:

a) Sign up for the golden handcuffs of employee-based insurance. Now you are tethered to your job, with little "incentive" for the "productivity" of entrepreneurship. You are a cog in the wheel, dreams dashed, because your family depends on Daddy Corp for affordable healthcare

b) Buy healthcare on your own through private companies. Oops. You had a diagnosis once that suggests to the profit-making insurance companies that you might actually COST them money. Sorry. No insurance for you. Or, yes, you "get accepted"! Happy day! You now have earned the privilege of paying more than your mortgage payment on a monthly basis for your insurance.

c) Go without healthcare. Why not "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and simply save up the money for a little rainy day of cancer or diabetes? You do have that American Dream of a McMansion--just go sell it. It MIGHT cover your medical expenses as long as you're not underwater on your mortgage.

Gee, now that Obamacare is here, I can't WAIT til I get sick so I can finally abuse the system and live off of you healthy taxpayers. Life is good!

This. Yes. I get your points and very much agree! Rob