3 ms·

What I get from this is you and your wife are healthy and didn't go to the doctor and after the ACA your premium went up $20 a month. > Sure it had more bells

What I get from this is you and your wife are healthy and didn't go to the doctor and after the ACA your premium went up $20 a month. > Sure it had more bells and whistles, but I didn't want nor need them. Like FREE preventative care. That's not a bell and whistle. That's worth more than your $20/month right there. Go to the doctor already. And more importantly, that premium is identical regardless of what condition you were in. Without ACA, if you had cancer, you would die and/or be financially ruined. Worse yet, if you just had something like depression, or high blood pressure, or diabetes, then you'd be screwed out getting affordable insurance even in the event you got cancer or something unrelated but deadly.

virmundi 10y ago
> What I get from this is you and your wife are healthy and didn't go to the doctor and after the ACA your premium went up $20 a month. My taxes, and everyone else's taxes go to pay this $500 dollar difference. The Federal government didn't some how magically create the gap funds. They have to increase taxes through fines and other sources to pay this. They've effectively hidden these costs for the subsidized individuals. I'm not paying $780 per month with a large refund at the end of the year. I'm paying a few hundred. Most people don't think about the revenue impact this has on the country. We now have to fund these subsidies. We now remove even more money from people that could have go into stocks, local economies, or services. The plan should be $280. That's it. Not $280 + subsidies. Just $280.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > We now have to fund these subsidies. Maybe, maybe not. Here's a case of a death that cost $250k for want of a $80 tooth extraction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02... We were already paying for uninsured folks via bankruptcies etc.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > Here's a case of a death that cost $250k for want of a $80 tooth extraction It didn't "cost" $250,000. That's the sticker price of what they billed for the services, but that's not what they expected to be paid by insurance. That's a crucial distinction. Just as you don't pay sticker price for a new car, the insurance company doesn't pay what the provider bills them for; they pay some agreed-upon rate, which is specified as a multiple of what Medicare pays. > We were already paying for uninsured folks via bankruptcies etc. Not exactly. Contrary to public misconception, it's well known in the medical world that preventive care is not cheaper in the long-run. (It generally results in better care, but not always, and it always results in greater utilization either way, so the end result is more expensive). You can make the argument in favor of routine and preventive care on the grounds that it's the right thing to do, medically or morally. But it does result in greater costs overall, and that still has to be paid for.

virmundi 10y ago

> What I get from this is you and your wife are healthy and didn't go to the doctor and after the ACA your premium went up $20 a month. My taxes, and everyone else's taxes go to pay this $500 dollar difference. The Federal government didn't some how magically create the gap funds. They have to increase taxes through fines and other sources to pay this. They've effectively hidden these costs for the subsidized individuals. I'm not paying $780 per month with a large refund at the end of the year. I'm paying a few hundred. Most people don't think about the revenue impact this has on the country. We now have to fund these subsidies. We now remove even more money from people that could have go into stocks, local economies, or services. The plan should be $280. That's it. Not $280 + subsidies. Just $280.

ceejayoz 10y ago
> We now have to fund these subsidies. Maybe, maybe not. Here's a case of a death that cost $250k for want of a $80 tooth extraction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02... We were already paying for uninsured folks via bankruptcies etc.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Here's a case of a death that cost $250k for want of a $80 tooth extraction It didn't "cost" $250,000. That's the sticker price of what they billed for the services, but that's not what they expected to be paid by insurance. That's a crucial distinction. Just as you don't pay sticker price for a new car, the insurance company doesn't pay what the provider bills them for; they pay some agreed-upon rate, which is specified as a multiple of what Medicare pays. > We were already paying for uninsured folks via bankruptcies etc. Not exactly. Contrary to public misconception, it's well known in the medical world that preventive care is not cheaper in the long-run. (It generally results in better care, but not always, and it always results in greater utilization either way, so the end result is more expensive). You can make the argument in favor of routine and preventive care on the grounds that it's the right thing to do, medically or morally. But it does result in greater costs overall, and that still has to be paid for.