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

[peggy]

Bravo, Peggy! I agree with what you have posted here. That being said, I do believe, as I have posted elsewhere, that the Obama administration has not done an effective job in educating the public about ObamaCare, and due to this, all kinds of misinformation is out there. I really hold the administration accountable for this - It's almost as if Barak was thinking, Ok, I've got the masses covered, leave me in peace now so I can go play a few more rounds of golf. Or something like that. Great that ObamaCare has survived and is being more and more implemented, don't get me wrong, but poor communication/education about what ObamaCare is all about and what's in it for the average person/why exactly should they support it. Rob

Exactly Rob! I don't see it as him just moving on to other things, but actually kind of like the higher math teacher. We all had that teacher...knows math inside and out and understands it standing on his/her head, but just can't understand why 'we' can't get it! It's so plain! It's right there!
I think Obama sees how it works and will benefit the country now and into the future, and can't understand how anyone can't see that. Some of us can, but a whole lot can't, and I agree with you that their biggest failing is in getting the right/factual information out. The democrats are not exactly known for their good PR!

[frugalone]

Well, our local Blue Cross/Blue Shield site isn't working properly yet. They can't let me know if I qualify for a subsidy or not. Without a subsidy, the prices are higher than what I would pay through my employer.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm living in some sort of bubble. I'm in sticker shock, constantly. Like last year, I posted about my brother's car payment being $440 a month. That's more than I pay in rent. People told me that was fairly typical for a car payment. The last car payment I had was $80 a month (back in the '80s; and it was a used car). My rent has been my highest expense, next to food. I guess I need to get used to the fact that I'm not going to get away with a low health insurance premium. Very sad.

[Spartana]

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

I got that same letter from BC for my bare-bones plan - as did my sister (who nows has employer coverage via Kaiser) got from Aetna (and apparently Aetna is pulling out of Calif completely on Jan. 1st) who she had while unemployed. A friend got a similair letter from another insurance carrier - Healthnet. For myself, as a military veteran with a service connected disability rated by the VA, I will drop my BC coverage and use the VA exclusively at no or little cost to me and not purchase any health insurance (I don't qualify for subsidies anyways only medicaid).

[Spartana]

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.

I have some friends who are very low income (minimum wage) and are supporting a few kids on that. They have employer health coverage but with very high out-of-pocket costs share for their monthly premiums to cover themselves and their family. However I don't believe that they will be able to recieve any subsidies even if they are below poverty level since the ACA doesn't apply to people who have health insurance available from their employers even if they are extremely low income. A group in dire need of help that got missed by the ACA. Sad.

[try2bfrugal]

I have some friends who are very low income (minimum wage) and are supporting a few kids on that. They have employer health coverage but with very high out-of-pocket costs share for their monthly premiums to cover themselves and their family. However I don't believe that they will be able to recieve any subsidies even if they are below poverty level since the ACA doesn't apply to people who have health insurance available from their employers even if they are extremely low income. A group in dire need of help that got missed by the ACA. Sad.

They still might, depending on their income and the policy cost. It would be worth checking into for them.

[Spartana]

They still might, depending on their income and the policy cost. It would be worth checking into for them.

That's good to know. I think this was one of the issues Walmart employees were striking over - low income workers who had to pay too much towards their employers health insurance - especially if people making 4 or 5 times their income can qualify for subsidies to pay for health insurance,

[try2bfrugal]

That's good to know. I think this was one of the issues Walmart employees were striking over - low income workers who had to pay too much towards their employers health insurance.

This is why Trader Joe's stopped offering part-time employees health insurance - because they could get better coverage for lower cost on the exchanges than TJs could offer them, as long as they were not covered under an employer policy. TJs did them a favor and still gave them some money to subsidize the cost of an exchange policy.

I feel bad that TJs got bad press out of it when they were trying to do the right thing.

[gimmethesimplelife]

This is why Trader Joe's stopped offering part-time employees health insurance - because they could get better coverage for lower cost on the exchanges than TJs could offer them, as long as they were not covered under an employer policy. TJs did them a favor and still gave them some money to subsidize the cost of an exchange policy.

I feel bad that TJs got bad press out of it when they were trying to do the right thing.

Yes, this! I think Trader Joes did the right thing too. Also - the few that work in restaurants that do have insurance usually have a mini-medical plan with something like 3K in coverage and that's it - a joke in other words. Employers that have such mini -policies really are doing their employees a favor by pushing them onto the exchanges. Rob

[Spartana]

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.

True but then you are shifting the insurance cost from wealthy private businesses onto the taxpayer's. Making big business even greater wealth and increasing taxes for citizens and the deficit. All on the back of higher earners who cannot use the subsidies themselves, but get to see their premium's sky rocket as well as their taxes. And as more companies stop offering insurance coverage to their employees - or eliminating full time jobs or reducing hours to p/t once the employer mandate kicks in - the greater that tax burden increases. Add into that that the potential millions who will retire a decade or 2 early because they can get subsidized health insurance, as well as the younger people who choose not to work or just work p/t, and you increase that national debt and the requirement for more taxes. All the while doing nothing to control health insurance costs which will probably continue to rise now that dear old uncle Sam I'd footing the bill rather than big business for many.

[ApatheticNoMore]

True but then you are shifting the insurance cost from wealthy private businesses onto the taxpayer's.

true but it's how every country does it, granted with healthcare systems that seem to control costs better, that is single payer. I do wonder if the policies the TJ workers get on the exchanges will be every bit comparable to those they had before (same deductable, same maximum out of pocket, same copays, same size network, with at least as many prestigious hospitals in it etc..) - because that, not just costs, is the comparison that actually has to be made, to evaluate the trade off. Not that non-unionized workers can necessarily complain much even if they got a bad deal.

All the while doing nothing to control health insurance costs which will probably continue to rise now that dear old uncle Sam I'd footing the bill rather than big business for many.

Don't know that big business had much negotiating power there, but yes there is nothing to stop costs from rising (I mean is there any strong negotiating power to cap costs like say hosptialization costs of pharma costs?). And uncle Sam plus the consumer will foot the bill.