The messed up thing is that if you cant afford the 20K or even 10K or pay the penalty's you still are insured and its not like you will be put in jail....Just more taxpayers picking up the tab for mostly lazy folk......But then again that was the main objective of in the mind of the marxist.
In a final regulation issued Wednesday,
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated that under Obamacare the
cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost
$20,000 for the year.
Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.
The IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan
for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS
gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will
need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
The examples point to families of four and
families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to
pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
The messed up thing is that if you cant afford the 20K or even 10K or pay the penalty's you still are insured and its not like you will be put in jail....Just more taxpayers picking up the tab for mostly lazy folk......But then again that was the main objective of in the mind of the marxist.
In a final regulation issued Wednesday,
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated that under Obamacare the
cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost
$20,000 for the year.
Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.
The IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan
for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS
gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will
need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
The examples point to families of four and
families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to
pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
So who is at fault that the cost of real coverage is through the roof and said inflation has outpaced core for multiple decades?
Obama?
We could continue the "dental insurance" route which means insurance with really paltry coverage, fast phase outs and caps, exclusions through the roof joke coverage..
0
So who is at fault that the cost of real coverage is through the roof and said inflation has outpaced core for multiple decades?
Obama?
We could continue the "dental insurance" route which means insurance with really paltry coverage, fast phase outs and caps, exclusions through the roof joke coverage..
If anything Obama care has reduced the cost of insurance rates and in 2014 when the mandate takes the next step..... the insurance should decrease dramatically merely because everyone will then be forced to pay into the system rather than having just sick people pay in which would in turn increase the rates for non-sick people..
0
If anything Obama care has reduced the cost of insurance rates and in 2014 when the mandate takes the next step..... the insurance should decrease dramatically merely because everyone will then be forced to pay into the system rather than having just sick people pay in which would in turn increase the rates for non-sick people..
If anything Obama care has reduced the cost of insurance rates and in 2014 when the mandate takes the next step..... the insurance should decrease dramatically merely because everyone will then be forced to pay into the system rather than having just sick people pay in which would in turn increase the rates for non-sick people..
Where does one get any information leading to this conclusion?
I mean, it isn't as if there are any news stories or studies suggesting insurance premiums are going to decline. They are not.
They are increasing and they will go up in 2014 by about 50%
President Obama repeatedly claimed that health-insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 lower by the end of his first term, they are actually about $3,000 higher
If anything Obama care has reduced the cost of insurance rates and in 2014 when the mandate takes the next step..... the insurance should decrease dramatically merely because everyone will then be forced to pay into the system rather than having just sick people pay in which would in turn increase the rates for non-sick people..
Where does one get any information leading to this conclusion?
I mean, it isn't as if there are any news stories or studies suggesting insurance premiums are going to decline. They are not.
They are increasing and they will go up in 2014 by about 50%
President Obama repeatedly claimed that health-insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 lower by the end of his first term, they are actually about $3,000 higher
I think what Stiln isn't grasping is that while it is true that more people will be paying into the system, insurance companies now are required to cover so much more than before, that they are forced to raise prices. Nobody can realistically expect the insurance companies to start covering pre existing conditions with no exception, free birth control, etc.. and not charge more.
There is nothing in Obamacare that will cause rates overall to be reduced. 20 something states will let the Feds set up and run the exchanges and under the Fed run exchanges subsides available are lower than the state run exchanges.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
I think what Stiln isn't grasping is that while it is true that more people will be paying into the system, insurance companies now are required to cover so much more than before, that they are forced to raise prices. Nobody can realistically expect the insurance companies to start covering pre existing conditions with no exception, free birth control, etc.. and not charge more.
There is nothing in Obamacare that will cause rates overall to be reduced. 20 something states will let the Feds set up and run the exchanges and under the Fed run exchanges subsides available are lower than the state run exchanges.
The myth is that the "average" family will pay $20,000. However this is for a non-average family of 5 earning $120,000. No one can give an exact cost estimate of insurance under Obamacare until companies start competing in future exchanges. If Obamacare didn't exist, nothing would stop companies raising premiums on sick people with preexisting conditions as they continue to do for decades.
0
The myth is that the "average" family will pay $20,000. However this is for a non-average family of 5 earning $120,000. No one can give an exact cost estimate of insurance under Obamacare until companies start competing in future exchanges. If Obamacare didn't exist, nothing would stop companies raising premiums on sick people with preexisting conditions as they continue to do for decades.
You on the other hand I am not so sure graduated from the 8th grade..
Your "logic" at work.
California's Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and Blue Shield of California have proposed increases of 26%, 22%, and 20%, respectively, on certain customers, while insurers in states like Florida and Ohio have increased some people's rates by at least 20%
Remember, if anything Obama care has reduced the cost of insurance rates
"Logic" doesn't mean what you think it means.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
It's middle school logic..
You on the other hand I am not so sure graduated from the 8th grade..
Your "logic" at work.
California's Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and Blue Shield of California have proposed increases of 26%, 22%, and 20%, respectively, on certain customers, while insurers in states like Florida and Ohio have increased some people's rates by at least 20%
So what would happen to general HC inflation if this mandate were not in effect?
Are you suggesting rates would go down if Obamacare did not exist?
Or are you yet again looking to find something to complain about towards a politician you dislike?
How about this..what would you propose to not only slow the outpacing inflation, but to cut costs and not have benefits slashed or coverage not existing?
I think every citizen should have access to reasonable health care, so given that baseline how would you go about accomplishing this at lower cost levels?
Blaming Obama 24/7 is so immature and childish 14..how about you bring some content to the discussion instead of the normal flow of emoticons and bashing?
0
So what would happen to general HC inflation if this mandate were not in effect?
Are you suggesting rates would go down if Obamacare did not exist?
Or are you yet again looking to find something to complain about towards a politician you dislike?
How about this..what would you propose to not only slow the outpacing inflation, but to cut costs and not have benefits slashed or coverage not existing?
I think every citizen should have access to reasonable health care, so given that baseline how would you go about accomplishing this at lower cost levels?
Blaming Obama 24/7 is so immature and childish 14..how about you bring some content to the discussion instead of the normal flow of emoticons and bashing?
So what would happen to general HC inflation if this mandate were not in effect?
Are you suggesting rates would go down if Obamacare did not exist?
Or are you yet again looking to find something to complain about towards a politician you dislike?
How about this..what would you propose to not only slow the outpacing inflation, but to cut costs and not have benefits slashed or coverage not existing?
I think every citizen should have access to reasonable health care, so given that baseline how would you go about accomplishing this at lower cost levels?
Blaming Obama 24/7 is so immature and childish 14..how about you bring some content to the discussion instead of the normal flow of emoticons and bashing?
No, HC costs would not go down without Obamacare, but Obamacare was "sold" as a solution to rising costs. That was a flat out lie.
One does not have to have a solution to the HC cost issue in order to rightly criticize the faults of Obamacare. The new HC law will not accomplish anything close to what the politicians said it would do. They really half-arsed it and settled for a crappy bill just to get it through before Scott Brown was sworn in. It doesn't even cover the 30 million or so people that were supposedly uninsured. It does have some good aspects to the law but those are far outweighed by the negatives that we are seeing and will continue to see. The increase in govt alone is staggering.
A few ways to possible reduce costs could be to open up competition across state lines, just like car or life insurance. Why should there be 50 different BC/BS companies? Another idea would be to remove insurance from the workplace. Why should someone's insurance be tied to where they work?
Also, let people pick and choose what they want covered in their insurance plan including a minimum baseline of catastrophic coverage. Why should I have to be on a plan that covers smokers, pre natal care and kids when I don't fall into that category? I should be able to pick my coverages and my rate should be based on a 49 year old man with slightly elevated chlorestoral levels. Someone younger than me and in better shape should not pay as much as I do.
Obamacare along with current HC plans are one size fits none and people are paying for stuff they will never need. Make the plans fit the needs and prices drop.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So what would happen to general HC inflation if this mandate were not in effect?
Are you suggesting rates would go down if Obamacare did not exist?
Or are you yet again looking to find something to complain about towards a politician you dislike?
How about this..what would you propose to not only slow the outpacing inflation, but to cut costs and not have benefits slashed or coverage not existing?
I think every citizen should have access to reasonable health care, so given that baseline how would you go about accomplishing this at lower cost levels?
Blaming Obama 24/7 is so immature and childish 14..how about you bring some content to the discussion instead of the normal flow of emoticons and bashing?
No, HC costs would not go down without Obamacare, but Obamacare was "sold" as a solution to rising costs. That was a flat out lie.
One does not have to have a solution to the HC cost issue in order to rightly criticize the faults of Obamacare. The new HC law will not accomplish anything close to what the politicians said it would do. They really half-arsed it and settled for a crappy bill just to get it through before Scott Brown was sworn in. It doesn't even cover the 30 million or so people that were supposedly uninsured. It does have some good aspects to the law but those are far outweighed by the negatives that we are seeing and will continue to see. The increase in govt alone is staggering.
A few ways to possible reduce costs could be to open up competition across state lines, just like car or life insurance. Why should there be 50 different BC/BS companies? Another idea would be to remove insurance from the workplace. Why should someone's insurance be tied to where they work?
Also, let people pick and choose what they want covered in their insurance plan including a minimum baseline of catastrophic coverage. Why should I have to be on a plan that covers smokers, pre natal care and kids when I don't fall into that category? I should be able to pick my coverages and my rate should be based on a 49 year old man with slightly elevated chlorestoral levels. Someone younger than me and in better shape should not pay as much as I do.
Obamacare along with current HC plans are one size fits none and people are paying for stuff they will never need. Make the plans fit the needs and prices drop.
Rates are calculated by demographics and risk pools.
How would removing HC from the workplace make costs lower? If anything it would make them higher. Group plans allow costs to be spread across large numbers of people and reduce risk, thus lowering costs. Also some/many employers contribute to offset HC premiums, some even pay all premiums.
The idea of allowing people to pick garbage policies to lower costs does not help one bit. All that does is temporarily reduce costs of premiums and shift the real cost to the provider..so when the people who try and gamble with garbage policies actually NEED insurance, who bears that cost? Those who have good plans and people who are paying their co-pays and bills.
Baselines are arbitrary and temporary cost driven, and are part of the reason why HC inflation outstrips and will continue to outstrip.
Until we stop allowing drug companies to monopolize costs on us and we curtail litigation costs I dont see a real way to slow this thing down.
0
How does opening up state lines help?
Rates are calculated by demographics and risk pools.
How would removing HC from the workplace make costs lower? If anything it would make them higher. Group plans allow costs to be spread across large numbers of people and reduce risk, thus lowering costs. Also some/many employers contribute to offset HC premiums, some even pay all premiums.
The idea of allowing people to pick garbage policies to lower costs does not help one bit. All that does is temporarily reduce costs of premiums and shift the real cost to the provider..so when the people who try and gamble with garbage policies actually NEED insurance, who bears that cost? Those who have good plans and people who are paying their co-pays and bills.
Baselines are arbitrary and temporary cost driven, and are part of the reason why HC inflation outstrips and will continue to outstrip.
Until we stop allowing drug companies to monopolize costs on us and we curtail litigation costs I dont see a real way to slow this thing down.
Opening across state lines open up competition which drops prices. In most states there are only 4-5 insurance companies to choose from (I could be off on that a bit, but it's very limited). Just like State Farm is a nationwide auto and home insurance company, you don't have that in HC. With a limited number of options in a state the insurance companies really don't have to compete too much for your business and can basically charge whatever they want. Open it up to more companies, especially foreign owned insurance companies and prices will go down.
Individual rates through a workplace plan are not determined by one's individual risk, it's based on your group. So if I work with someone that has a very sick kid or someone that had a serious medical condition, my rates get raised because of the amount of services my group used, even if I never went to the doctor.
I prefer that people take responsibilty for their own actions and lifestyle. If you pick the bare minimum of insurance and your plan doesn't cover something then YOU are responsible for paying for it. My rates should not go up because someone else can't pay and if I don't pay, that shouldn't raise your rates.
You are correct on the drug companies monolpolizing costs, but this is mostly while they have exclusive rights before generics are made available. Funny you bring that up because under Obamacare big pharma was given a big fat bone. The time that they now have before generics are available was raised to 12 years. Again, another example of Obamacare raising costs.
Agree on the litigation costs. Simply ridiculous.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Opening across state lines open up competition which drops prices. In most states there are only 4-5 insurance companies to choose from (I could be off on that a bit, but it's very limited). Just like State Farm is a nationwide auto and home insurance company, you don't have that in HC. With a limited number of options in a state the insurance companies really don't have to compete too much for your business and can basically charge whatever they want. Open it up to more companies, especially foreign owned insurance companies and prices will go down.
Individual rates through a workplace plan are not determined by one's individual risk, it's based on your group. So if I work with someone that has a very sick kid or someone that had a serious medical condition, my rates get raised because of the amount of services my group used, even if I never went to the doctor.
I prefer that people take responsibilty for their own actions and lifestyle. If you pick the bare minimum of insurance and your plan doesn't cover something then YOU are responsible for paying for it. My rates should not go up because someone else can't pay and if I don't pay, that shouldn't raise your rates.
You are correct on the drug companies monolpolizing costs, but this is mostly while they have exclusive rights before generics are made available. Funny you bring that up because under Obamacare big pharma was given a big fat bone. The time that they now have before generics are available was raised to 12 years. Again, another example of Obamacare raising costs.
California's Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and Blue Shield of California have proposed increases of 26%, 22%, and 20%, respectively, on certain customers, while insurers in states like Florida and Ohio have increased some people's rates by at least 20%
Remember, if anything Obama care has reduced the cost of insurance rates
"Logic" doesn't mean what you think it means.
You just followed up my 2 sentence post with 3 posts of absolute tripe....
Not one of your posts, note one, not a single one has refuted my claim.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Your "logic" at work.
California's Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and Blue Shield of California have proposed increases of 26%, 22%, and 20%, respectively, on certain customers, while insurers in states like Florida and Ohio have increased some people's rates by at least 20%
Canos... you should stick to being an individual rather then get back into the "childish team/crew Bailout games" that make you look like bowslit... just my 2 cents
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I love the fact you think you presented "logic"
As usual, your post is a profile in projection.
Shocking development.
Utterly shocking.
here's his actual response after stlin's post....
Im not sure where the refuting anything is...
Canos... you should stick to being an individual rather then get back into the "childish team/crew Bailout games" that make you look like bowslit... just my 2 cents
So what would happen to general HC inflation if this mandate were not in effect?
Are you suggesting rates would go down if Obamacare did not exist?
Or are you yet again looking to find something to complain about towards a politician you dislike?
How about this..what would you propose to not only slow the outpacing inflation, but to cut costs and not have benefits slashed or coverage not existing?
I think every citizen should have access to reasonable health care, so given that baseline how would you go about accomplishing this at lower cost levels?
Blaming Obama 24/7 is so immature and childish 14..how about you bring some content to the discussion instead of the normal flow of emoticons and bashing?
I would be interested in hearing your solutions.
The subsidies (money) that people get to offset their cost of having to have insurance just dont come from a money tree on the White House lawn. Money is taken from someone.....who is it?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So what would happen to general HC inflation if this mandate were not in effect?
Are you suggesting rates would go down if Obamacare did not exist?
Or are you yet again looking to find something to complain about towards a politician you dislike?
How about this..what would you propose to not only slow the outpacing inflation, but to cut costs and not have benefits slashed or coverage not existing?
I think every citizen should have access to reasonable health care, so given that baseline how would you go about accomplishing this at lower cost levels?
Blaming Obama 24/7 is so immature and childish 14..how about you bring some content to the discussion instead of the normal flow of emoticons and bashing?
I would be interested in hearing your solutions.
The subsidies (money) that people get to offset their cost of having to have insurance just dont come from a money tree on the White House lawn. Money is taken from someone.....who is it?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
