For what it's worth. My experience with ObamaCare

[findingZzero]

OP how can you be so ignorant? I am saying this is the most kind way possible...

******snip********

FOAD with love........

 

[steveh_131]

pretty sure Obamacare hasn't went into effect on employer provided health insurance yet.

Really? Tell that to the folks whose premiums have risen several hundred percent since it became a law.

well you could pay for your own

Ya know, when someone else pays for your ****, you play by their rules. I don't pay anything for my health insurance as long as I refrain from smoking (not a problem) and participate in their "wellness" program. Since they're covering the cost, I'm okay with that. As Jake said, if you want to make your own rules, YOU pay for it.

I disagree with this. A century of government regulation has permanently entangled health benefits as a part of your compensation as an employee. Not accepting it is basically equivalent to taking a $20,000 annual pay cut.

So you're already paying for it. It is not some generous gift from your employer.

 

[Bunnykid68]

pretty sure Obamacare hasn't went into effect on employer provided health insurance yet.

But they have been making changes on their own to offset potential cost because of it.

 

[findingZzero]

What makes you think that decreasing other people's control over you is a backwards step in evolution?

Giving something up to live in communities whilst gaining other things does not make positive rights the logical conclusion of societal evolution. The "right" to healthcare requires that resources from other people be reapportioned. With negative rights, the only independence you give up is violating another person's individual rights.

I'm sorry. You nor your daughter have a right to healthcare. You have a right to pursue it with your resources, but the burden of paying for it should not be placed on me. I have my own to provide for.

Jamil, I'd like to respond to the philosophical argument about rights and societal evolution. First of all, giving up some independence has to be voluntary, although in physical evolution it may not be so. For example, a one celled animal (amoeba) has to hunt feed and excrete and defend itself all from one cell. When cells aggregated/specialized into tissues, some cells were isolated from the outside environment and could not hunt, but had to depend on other cells still exposed to the 'pond' to get food. In exchange, the inner cells performed other functions allowing more complex behaviors to evolve. If one cell doesn't spend it's entire life hunting, feeding, excreting we have the emergence of biological leisure time, time in which other things can happen. If I had to hunt, build my house, discover my own medicine, communicate with smoke signals, stitch up my wounds, defend my borders, dispose of my trash, fight off bad guys (like some of you guys here) I might enjoy it, but I would have no time to invent the Hadrian Collider, the Ferrari roadster, or the salad spinner. The moon would be w/o foot prints. The Higgs boson would go undiscovered.
I give up some control. Garbage folks won't take unfolded cardboard. I can't bury my unruly neighbor in my backyard (OK, I jest here, I live on the west side). You could argue that all these things are bad. That's a different argument. I might have a more difficult time with. I would like to be fully independent. Evolution seems to point in the direction of greater sharing. Socialistic if you will. If there was enough for all would some/need want even more.. Are those needs, to best one's neighbor, satisify every craving, have more just for more's sake, atavistic behaviors that should be encouraged? Are we to be sea gulls mine mine mine mine fighting for scraps? I believe that self discipline is freedom. For more information of this subject, you might want to pick up my latest book "Self Disciplie is Freedom" soon to be released by my communist collective......Cheers

 

[-Jake-]

Really? Tell that to the folks whose premiums have risen several hundred percent since it became a law.

Yes really. I think sometime late this year it will be the suck for those of us lucky enough to have employer provided insurance.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes really. I think sometime late this year it will be the suck for those of us lucky enough to have employer provided insurance.

My point is that it has been affecting employer provided insurance for several years now. Perhaps the effects were indirect, but they are still present. Rates have skyrocketed, as have deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket costs.

Having employer provided insurance is not 'luck'. It is a part of your compensation. If it wasn't entangled by government regulation, those of us who currently have employer insurance would be making a lot more money and paying for our own insurance.

Which is the way it should have always been.

 

[Gadgetmonster]

My wife works for a medium sized business and I have been thankful that in the past they have offered family coverage. Particularly grateful because earlier this year we had a heart procedure that was mind boggling expensive (50K for one overnight stay - 24 hrs) But we just found out the coverage will no longer available as of March 2014.

So I have begun my search for health coverage for myself.

I have worked through the application process of OhBummerCare and have found it to be a reasonable process. Took about a half hour to get through.

It has presented about 18 choices in Gold, Silver and Bronze from MDWise and Anthem.

Comparing them will be exhausting. I am reasonably knowledgeable with insurance terminology (copay/coinsurance, deductible, Out of pocket etc.) but there are subtle differences in the coverage that you have to dig out and use in comparing. Like prescription coverage. This is not a task that will be real "easy". It is going to take some serious brain power to work through.

I have narrowed it down to three with one plan is offering a Health Savings Account. I need to learn more about that.

Have any thoughts about the HSA?

 

[ATOMonkey]

My wife works for a medium sized business and I have been thankful that in the past they have offered family coverage. Particularly grateful because earlier this year we had a heart procedure that was mind boggling expensive (50K for one overnight stay - 24 hrs) But we just found out the coverage will no longer available as of March 2014.

So I have begun my search for health coverage for myself.

I have worked through the application process of OhBummerCare and have found it to be a reasonable process. Took about a half hour to get through.

It has presented about 18 choices in Gold, Silver and Bronze from MDWise and Anthem.

Comparing them will be exhausting. I am reasonably knowledgeable with insurance terminology (copay/coinsurance, deductible, Out of pocket etc.) but there are subtle differences in the coverage that you have to dig out and use in comparing. Like prescription coverage. This is not a task that will be real "easy". It is going to take some serious brain power to work through.

I have narrowed it down to three with one plan is offering a Health Savings Account. I need to learn more about that.

Have any thoughts about the HSA?

HSA is the best thing since sliced bread, unless you have a chronic condition that is going to use it up every year. If that is the case, your "max out of pocket" expense needs to be less than or equal to the IRS allowable maximum contribution to your HSA.

For instance. My current plan has a $3,000 deductible and a $6,000 max out of pocket allowable. The IRS limit for HSA contributions is in the $6,250 neighborhood. So, if I contribute the max to my HSA, which is tax deductible, then I can technically save up $250 a year in my HSA account that I can use for long term care or I can cash it out (at a ridiculous tax penalty) for whatever I please.

However, if my max out of pocket was $7,000 and I only had $6250 in my account, I would be on the hook to pony up another $750 post tax money for medical expenses (if my expenses exceeded $7,000 for the year).

So, in that case, I would have to weigh the cost of a higher premium and lower "max out of pocket" plan.

Either way, you need to add up all of your total POTENTIAL costs for the year and see if it makes sense.

Now, if you don't have a chronic condition and only go to the doctor once every 3 or 4 years, then you might gamble on a high "max out of pocket" plan, hoping that you can save up enough money in the HSA to cover future expenses.

 

[printcraft]

Jamil, I'd like to respond to the philosophical argument about rights and societal evolution. First of all, giving up some independence has to be voluntary, although in physical evolution it may not be so. For example, a one celled animal (amoeba) has to hunt feed and excrete and defend itself all from one cell. When cells aggregated/specialized into tissues, some cells were isolated from the outside environment and could not hunt, but had to depend on other cells still exposed to the 'pond' to get food. In exchange, the inner cells performed other functions allowing more complex behaviors to evolve. If one cell doesn't spend it's entire life hunting, feeding, excreting we have the emergence of biological leisure time, time in which other things can happen. If I had to hunt, build my house, discover my own medicine, communicate with smoke signals, stitch up my wounds, defend my borders, dispose of my trash, fight off bad guys (like some of you guys here) I might enjoy it, but I would have no time to invent the Hadrian Collider, the Ferrari roadster, or the salad spinner. The moon would be w/o foot prints. The Higgs boson would go undiscovered.
I give up some control. Garbage folks won't take unfolded cardboard. I can't bury my unruly neighbor in my backyard (OK, I jest here, I live on the west side). You could argue that all these things are bad. That's a different argument. I might have a more difficult time with. I would like to be fully independent. Evolution seems to point in the direction of greater sharing. Socialistic if you will. If there was enough for all would some/need want even more.. Are those needs, to best one's neighbor, satisify every craving, have more just for more's sake, atavistic behaviors that should be encouraged? Are we to be sea gulls mine mine mine mine fighting for scraps? I believe that self discipline is freedom. For more information of this subject, you might want to pick up my latest book "Self Disciplie is Freedom" soon to be released by my communist collective......Cheers

 

[findingZzero]

I K, R?
I actually ROF and L'ed
I'm still laughing.It's good to laugh. Unintended consequence? I think you added 3 days to my life span.

 

[findingZzero]

Perfect!

 

[printcraft]

I think you added 3 days to my life span.

Sorry about that. Those 3 days are longer than you would have lived otherwise and according to obamacare you
are taking valuable resources that could go to a more useful end.
Also, I believe you have to pay a tax on those days if you go over your allotted lifespan.

 

[jamil]

Jamil, I'd like to respond to the philosophical argument about rights and societal evolution. First of all, giving up some independence has to be voluntary, although in physical evolution it may not be so. For example, a one celled animal (amoeba) has to hunt feed and excrete and defend itself all from one cell. When cells aggregated/specialized into tissues, some cells were isolated from the outside environment and could not hunt, but had to depend on other cells still exposed to the 'pond' to get food. In exchange, the inner cells performed other functions allowing more complex behaviors to evolve. If one cell doesn't spend it's entire life hunting, feeding, excreting we have the emergence of biological leisure time, time in which other things can happen. If I had to hunt, build my house, discover my own medicine, communicate with smoke signals, stitch up my wounds, defend my borders, dispose of my trash, fight off bad guys (like some of you guys here) I might enjoy it, but I would have no time to invent the Hadrian Collider, the Ferrari roadster, or the salad spinner. The moon would be w/o foot prints. The Higgs boson would go undiscovered.
I give up some control. Garbage folks won't take unfolded cardboard. I can't bury my unruly neighbor in my backyard (OK, I jest here, I live on the west side). You could argue that all these things are bad. That's a different argument. I might have a more difficult time with. I would like to be fully independent. Evolution seems to point in the direction of greater sharing. Socialistic if you will. If there was enough for all would some/need want even more.. Are those needs, to best one's neighbor, satisify every craving, have more just for more's sake, atavistic behaviors that should be encouraged? Are we to be sea gulls mine mine mine mine fighting for scraps? I believe that self discipline is freedom. For more information of this subject, you might want to pick up my latest book "Self Disciplie is Freedom" soon to be released by my communist collective......Cheers

I'm sorry but that's a huge load of intellectual elitist bull****.

You can't compare societal evolution with physical evolution, and then concoct supposed similarities as evidence that society most naturally evolves towards socialism. We are creatures that are most interested in self preservation. That makes a social system based on individual rights and free market economics the most natural fit.

And you're arguing against something I'm not advocating. Being against paying for your daughter's healthcare, and saying I'm an individualist doesn't mean I think all individuals must each fend for every last detail of life's necessities. If you want to pay for your daughter's health insurance that's your business. But if you want me to help you pay for your daughter's health insurance, you should give me something of equal value in return. Society isn't some autonomous collective entity that owes your daughter healthcare. Society comprises individuals who have their own individual needs and wants and should be free to barter for them.

So contrary to your suggestion, the logical conclusion of individualism isn't having to hunt for your own food, or building your own house, and otherwise fending for yourself. The societal implication of individualism is capitalism, which provides a civilized framework for exercising our human nature towards self preservation. And it does not impede innovation as you've implied, instead, innovation flourishes under capitalism. That's another discussion, but simply stated, if individualistic capitalism impedes innovation and socialism feeds innovation we'd be the ones still living in grass huts and throwing spears at our food instead of the tribal societies, which are the epitome and most logical conclusion of socialism--and are even advocated by many socialists.

About the benefits of self-discipline I agree, but not the conclusion. To individuals self-discipline is a necessary ingredient for success no matter what socioeconomic system you live in. But no matter what, it does not necessarily bring about success or freedom. You can be self disciplined all you want behind bars...but you're still in jail. And self discipline doesn't, by itself, invent light bulbs or discover ways to separate conjoined twins. Necessity is the mother of invention. Self discipline is only a term in the equation that decides who will turn an idea into something real.

 

[jamil]

I K, R?
I actually ROF and L'ed
I'm still laughing.It's good to laugh. Unintended consequence? I think you added 3 days to my life span.

Perfect!

As usual, printcraft fits a thousand words into one picture. It could only be more fitting if Picard were singing kumbaya.

 

[Arthur Dent]

What socialism is good?

How about the part in which distribution is according to individual contribution? You work more, you get more. You do nothing, you get nothing.

 

[Gadgetmonster]

HSA is the best thing since sliced bread, unless you have a chronic condition that is going to use it up every year. If that is the case, your "max out of pocket" expense needs to be less than or equal to the IRS allowable maximum contribution to your HSA.

For instance. My current plan has a $3,000 deductible and a $6,000 max out of pocket allowable. The IRS limit for HSA contributions is in the $6,250 neighborhood. So, if I contribute the max to my HSA, which is tax deductible, then I can technically save up $250 a year in my HSA account that I can use for long term care or I can cash it out (at a ridiculous tax penalty) for whatever I please.

However, if my max out of pocket was $7,000 and I only had $6250 in my account, I would be on the hook to pony up another $750 post tax money for medical expenses (if my expenses exceeded $7,000 for the year).

So, in that case, I would have to weigh the cost of a higher premium and lower "max out of pocket" plan.

Either way, you need to add up all of your total POTENTIAL costs for the year and see if it makes sense.

Now, if you don't have a chronic condition and only go to the doctor once every 3 or 4 years, then you might gamble on a high "max out of pocket" plan, hoping that you can save up enough money in the HSA to cover future expenses.

Thanks for this good information.

 

[-Jake-]

If you have leftover money in an HSA does it get forfeited or rolled over to the next year?

 

[Arthur Dent]

If you have leftover money in an HSA does it get forfeited or rolled over to the next year?

It will roll over into the next year. With FSAs (flexible spending accounts) you would forfeit the left over money at the end of the year.

 

[jamil]

If you have leftover money in an HSA does it get forfeited or rolled over to the next year?

I thought I remember during our open enrollment meetings the presenter said that HSA can no longer be rolled over. I don't use an HSA so I didn't pay close attention.

 

[findingZzero]

I'm sorry but that's a huge load of intellectual elitist bull****.

No it isn't, and you're not sorry.
Jamil, I'm interested in your ideas, not your vitriol. I can play though. First get some help to remove that plastic pole from up yer *ss.

You can't compare societal evolution with physical evolution, and then concoct supposed similarities as evidence that society most naturally evolves towards socialism..
I am pointing out that physical evolution has some social aspects, perhaps to remove the impression that socialism is evil, especially if it is involved in our evolution.
We are creatures that are most interested in self preservation. That makes a social system based on individual rights and free market economics the most natural fit. Talk about concocting conclusions. Not sure how that follows. All creatures share this trait, but don't necessarily evolve with the social system you suggest. Bees par ejemplo.
1. Does that mean you accept that physical evolution (and I'm not so sure societal evolution isn't intimately connected) does share some aspects of socialism?
2. I'm not advocating for socialism, but find that aspects of capitalism and socialism have emerged as our current system with one tempering or improving the other.

And you're arguing against something I'm not advocating. What's that? Being against paying for your daughter's healthcare, and saying I'm an individualist doesn't mean I think all individuals must each fend for every last detail of life's necessities. If you want to pay for your daughter's health insurance that's your business. But if you want me to help you pay for your daughter's health insurance, you should give me something of equal value in return. 3. What you received for helping my daughter is that I'm helping you, your, wife &/or your sons. You are doing it voluntarily by electing the successive gov't's we have. If they don't represent you, wait til next year. Those are the rules we agree to follow.
Society isn't some autonomous collective entity that owes your daughter healthcare. Society comprises individuals who have their own individual needs and wants and should be free to barter for them. Not sure what to do with this. We as a society have certain needs in common. Health care is one of them.

So contrary to your suggestion, the logical conclusion of individualism isn't having to hunt for your own food, or building your own house, and otherwise fending for yourself. The societal implication of individualism is capitalism, which provides a civilized framework for exercising our human nature towards self preservation. Capitalism works best when moderated. I don't mind paying for public schools even if my kids are grown or didn't use them. And it does not impede innovation as you've implied, instead, innovation flourishes under capitalism. I didn't imply that there's anything wrong with individualism (whatever that means to you). I do suggest that innovation can flourish when minds are liberated from survival demands and have the time to dwell on problems other than survival 24/7. That's another discussion, but simply stated, if individualistic capitalism impedes innovation and socialism feeds innovation we'd be the ones still living in grass huts and throwing spears at our food instead of the tribal societies, which are the epitome and most logical conclusion of socialism--and are even advocated by many socialists. I'm no enemy of individualistic capitalism (whatever that is) and believe our system fosters innovation more than a purely socialistic society so don't pin that on me). You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with someone in your head! Who is it? You have to carry yer own baggage. I can help, but I'm not a socialist....My brain hurts....

About the benefits of self-discipline I agree, but not the conclusion. What was my conclusion? I'd go back and reread it, but don't want to lose this. Not sure I had a conclusion. To individuals self-discipline is a necessary ingredient for success no matter what socioeconomic system you live in. But no matter what, it does not necessarily bring about success or freedom. You can be self disciplined all you want behind bars...but you're still in jail. And self discipline doesn't, by itself, invent light bulbs or discover ways to separate conjoined twins. Necessity is the mother of invention. Self discipline is only a term in the equation that decides who will turn an idea into something real.

Again, who are you arguing this with?