Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
txmarti

How's Obama care working out for you?

TxMarti
9 years ago

On a thread last year (I think), there was a discussion about health insurance and several people said they were finally able to get insurance.

Looks like we are going to have to buy our own insurance in a few months, and I wondered what you thought about it.

Can you choose your own doctor?

Does it pay quickly?

Any complaints?

Comments (110)

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    Kswl, what have you used to conclude that other nations provide better health care? For all you have those posted is all speculative.

  • chijim
    9 years ago

    Just wanted to point out the link provided by roarah casting shade on Switzerland is 6yrs old.

  • peony4
    9 years ago

    Roarah, please look carefully at the chart that you are linking. Switzerland is situated at the bottom of the list, yes. But its reported figure for breast cancer survivor rates is not the lowest. According to the figures on the chart, the lowest rate for breast cancer survival was reported by Ireland (69.6%).

    Why didn't Switzerland submit full results like the rest of the country? I don't know. I only reviewed the chart you provided and the Lancet article from which it was retrieved. I'm not making statements comparing U.S. healthcare vs that in other countries. I have anecdotal experience with healthcare when I lived in Europe and traveled to Asia, but not enough to form an opinion. I'd need to conduct much more research to be able to adequately discuss this.

    Moreover, I have not read enough research or had enough personal experience with the ACA to have an informed opinion about its merits and pitfalls, either. But I do recognize that our nation's healthcare system is so complex--and we're not even taking into account the roots of many of our healthcare problems. We tend to look at personal and public health in very fragmented ways. And grabbing the first link we find in a google search makes our perspective even more misaligned.

    This discussion has been helpful to me to learn about anecdotal experiences of others. However, I find that when people begin discussing any such complex issue, those with the strongest opinions are often the least informed.

  • beaglesdoitbetter1
    9 years ago

    Here is another chart from Cancer.org. The available data years do not match up exactly among countries but the U.S. is significantly higher in overall survival than every other country based on the data that is available.

    From 1996- 2006, cancer survival in the U.S. was 65.9 percent overall. By comparison, survival rates were 46.2 percent from 1995-1999 in England and 55 percent from 1995-1999 in Switzerland. Other than stomach cancer, there was not a single type of cancer in which Switzerland had a better survival rate than the U.S.

    I really doubt things have changed that much in recent years that Switzerland would now somehow be better than the U.S.

  • cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)
    9 years ago

    For those who wish to toss out health statistics, one of the best sources is the World Health Organization. You can investigate by country, region, etc. Glancing quickly, life expectancies in France, Switzerland, and Canada are higher than ours here in the US whether you look at expectancy from birth, from age 60, or healthy life expectancy. The differences, however, are only 2-3 years. We are better for high blood pressure, but the others far surpass us for low blood glucose and obesity levels (us=30.2 % for males and 33.2% for females. France=16.8% for males and 14.6% for females. Switzerland was comparable to France and Canada was in the 20% range). Per capita Expenditures for health care are several thousands lower in France and Canada and higher in Switzerland.

    I am another taxpayer for universal health care.

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    I am actually hopeful that ACA will work, everyone should have equal access to health care, I only object to the idea that single payer systems work. They also have numerous flaws. No system is perfect nor is ours all bad.

  • kswl2
    9 years ago

    With respect to statistics:

    According to the CIA World Factbook, published every year, the United States is 55th among all nations in infant survival during the first year of life. Joining virtually all Western European countries (including Switzerland) ahead of us are countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Belarus, Israel, Taiwan, Cuba, French Polynesia and Guam.

    This measure is a generally accepted indicator of a population's level of healthcare. According to the CIA.

  • cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)
    9 years ago

    Roarah, what is your definition of "work" in your statement that you object to the idea that single payer systems work? Just curious since it appears that, in many countries, they work just fine and often less expensively. I probably won't be back since this thread was sort of hijacked and it is unlikely that anyone will change anyone else's mind, but there does appear to be strong evidence against that statement. I do agree no system is perfect, but I would prefer to err on the side of taking care of our poorest and weakest citizens as well as our working poor by providing them with health care. In the long run, we all benefit. JMHO.

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    Cyn, I said I am hopeful that the ACA will work for I too wish for all to have health coverage but even though I wish to take care of the poorer and weaker citizens I still believe in a free market system with many choices and different options. In most single payer systems there is much less screening and early detection for numerous diseases in addition to very lengthy wait times. My husband is English and I have had the misfortune of experiencing and paying, via very high taxes, for a single payer system. Let' s just say the Uk presently prides itself by saying that their average wait time for an approved procedure is 4.5 to 8months. Again, I am not againt the ACA. It can hopefully maintain the best of what is right with our present care while fixing what was wrong, too many going without coverage. I am particularly happy that more were added to medicaid. Our definition of what qualifies for poverty is absurd and I am so grateful that the cut offs were broadened.

    This post was edited by roarah on Mon, Jul 21, 14 at 22:11

  • funnygirl
    9 years ago

    Roarah, interesting about your experience with the British system. I have a British (now US citizen) friend, married to a physician (trained in the UK and US, now a US citizen). Their anecdotal accounts and comparisons of the two systems are always an eye opener. They send their family medications (easily obtainable and common meds for us here in the U.S.) which their doctors either will not or cannot prescribe. Having lived in two European counties, we also had the opportunity of seeing the system up close, not one we envied.

    I'm not optimistic about the future of health care in our country. We will become single payer, it is just a matter of time, and with that will come higher costs, longer waits for appts and surgical procedure, and inferior care. I believe we'll see these things once the ACA is fully implemented and it will only deteriorate with single payer.

    I wish our representatives had worked harder to find a way of covering pre-existing illnesses and those unable to afford health care, without sacrificing the many advantages a free market system provides.

  • kswl2
    9 years ago

    There are no "free market advantages" unless you are invested in insurance company stock, lol.

    With respect to long waits, there is no reason a person cannot wait several months for a screening colonoscopy that occur since every several years. Having expensive CT and MRI scanners on every corner, as ubiquitous as quickie marts, allows us to have that test today but drives UP the cost per person. Why? Since there aren't enough patients to use each machine enough to pay for it over a longer time, each patient (or insurance) is charged more per use. And as the manufacturers crank out new and improved CT and MRI and PET scanners, each hospital or stand alone center has to keep up with their own new machine to compete for those same patients....the scanners are never paid for. They have a long life and are sold to other countries that cannot afford the "best." Which was our best the year before. Fewer machines servicing more people is more cost efficient. But heaven forbid someone has to wait a couple of weeks for a non urgent test.

    Okay, off the soapbox, whoever said that minds are not changed by these discussions is absolutely correct. However, I will say what I have always said to my children: everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts.

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    Oops double post

    This post was edited by roarah on Mon, Jul 21, 14 at 22:23

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    My mil waited one year for a mastectomy, not a screening Kswl. My fil waited 9 months for cataract surgery, not for non urgent tests...They have never had colonoscopies for they are only covered after70 if your smear is positive for blood, which is why their mortality rates for colon cancer are so high.

    This post was edited by roarah on Mon, Jul 21, 14 at 22:22

  • anele_gw
    9 years ago

    Personally, I believe there will never be universal healthcare in the US because collectively, we don't want everyone to have access to quality healthcare.

    We want those who have money to have health. We want those who live in poverty to continue to live as they do. Why? Because it means less competition and more people who will do the jobs others aren't willing to do. Those in the middle are teetering, and could go in either direction, especially when there is a health crisis.

    My mother marches at a weekly rally, against whatever war is going on. During one of her marches, she met a woman (undocumented worker) who is blind due to cataracts. My mother's peace and justice group found a surgeon to do the operation pro bono, but no hospital was willing to foot the bill. So, the woman continues on in life, blind, because of lack of papers-- the money kind and those granting her rights in the US.

    But who cares, right? Who cares. Too bad for her, but that's life. Life is about survival, and getting ahead. No one promised that life would be fair, after all.

    On a slightly different note, one of my biggest complaints about insurance is that we are paying for a service that inherently does not want to provide for us. There is a conflict of interest from the outset. It makes no sense.

    Insurance, a for-profit business, let's not forget, is expensive. So is medical care. Everyone likes to talk about government waste, but what about waste in the medical arena? What about the high cost of everything? Again, the costs come from one motivation: MONEY. Just take a look at the pharm industry . . .this is all about corporations and the never-ending drive for hoarding money. It's really disgusting, when you think about it. The hoarding of money.

  • peony4
    9 years ago

    Anele, your mother represents a reverence for humanity that does not exist in our healthcare system.

  • kswl2
    9 years ago

    Bowel cancers are the second most common cause of cancer deaths in both the United a States and the U.K. both historically and as late as last year.
    American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK.

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    Yes kswl, that is why early dection is so important. We have five year survival rates of about 60% the Uk is under 45%.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Britain trails in cancer survial rates, June 2014

  • writersblock (9b/10a)
    9 years ago

    We want those who have money to have health. We want those who live in poverty to continue to live as they do.

    Yes, that's really the heart of it, isn't it?

  • writersblock (9b/10a)
    9 years ago

    Oh well, it looks like all you "I've got mine--get away from me" folks can be happy now, given the court decision today.

  • sis3
    9 years ago

    It is true that mileage varies! I am from England and my family and DH's family are still there. They all receive excellent medical care and no-one that we know has ever had to wait unduly for that care. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer over 5 years ago and had a mastectomy and radiation very soon after diagnosis. Not only was her treatment excellent but a car or ambulance was sent to her home to take her to all her many appointments and she received in-home nursing care. She has never personally paid a penny in to the system! Paying for her treatment never crossed her mind and in my opinion nor should it.
    I have never been able to find a single Brit who would trade our US health system for theirs! Of course the British system is not perfect but there is much to admire in it. I believe the Danes may have the most successful system but I have little faith that we will learn from the best practices of other nations when we are so busy resisting change and looking longingly backwards.

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    I am happy for your family's positive outcomes Sis3. For what it is worth my mil was under the approved age for mammograms when she found her lump, so the year was from finding the lump to the surgery with a few steps used inbetween and she now has private insurance and travels to the US for care. When looking at every developed country's approval ratings for health care we all seem to have those who love their systems and those who do not. That, and all systems are expensive all though costs vary and moneies are collected by different means (high taxes or high fees) is the only universality I think there truly is in all our systems.

  • edeevee
    9 years ago

    On wait times in the US, and yes, this is (a long and frustrated rant, as well as) more anecdotal evidence:

    My BFF had a fall in April. Although x-rays pointed up something that was clearly not normal she was unable to get an MRI scheduled until the beginning of June.

    She has an unstable spine, with fractures dangerously encroaching on her spinal cord, making her very susceptible to an injury that would cause paralysis from the waist down. She has had two opinions, with differing ideas as to cause and treatment plan. One thing everyone agrees on is that she needs surgery.

    The large teaching hospital that has the most success with these kinds of surgeries will not schedule the procedure until she has seen a bone and mineral specialist. The soonest appointment is in October.

    In the meantime, additional tests show that she may have cancer of an undiscovered primary organ. It is possible that it has already metastasized to at least one other area, possibly two.

    The oncologist feels she needs to have an open tissue biopsy of her spine at the point where the original (in April) x-rays showed an abnormality ... but no one will do this until she has the spinal surgery.

    So there she is, off work, wearing a back brace, unable to lift more than 5 lbs or drive, worrying whether one wrong move will cause her to be paralyzed, or whether cancer is eating away at her.

    Her private insurance company will not approve a third opinion that would allow her to try another teaching hospital that might do the biopsy and surgery sooner.

    Her only options are: 1. Have the procedures done at the local podunk hospital, where they have never attempted this procedure before. 2. Wait for the large teaching hospital to fit her into their specialist schedule, then fit her into the surgery schedule. 3. Take on the gargantuan expense of self pay at a third hospital.

    THIS is the best health care in the world? You gotta be kidding me.

  • roarah
    9 years ago

    Endeevee, the NPAF was of great assistance to a friend of mine who was jumping hoops to get on a trail drug. Not sure if they can help your friend but I hope they can. Below is their website with a number to call with questions. I hope your friend finds relief and treatment soon.

    Here is a link that might be useful: patient advocacy organization, NPAF

  • edeevee
    9 years ago

    Thank you so much, Roarah! I've sent the link to my friend and will talk to her about it tonight!

  • anele_gw
    9 years ago

    Sis, very interesting about England.

    My American friend moved to Canada w/her European husband. She said if she ever had a serious medical issue, she'd come back to the US. Sadly, she had a very aggressive form of breast cancer (one of the hardest types to treat). She got treated in Canada, and had a fantastic (well, given that it was cancer) experience. Better, she said, than her care she'd ever had in the US. Thankfully, she is doing very well now.

    Just found out my mom's friend has a "shadow" that doctors are concerned may be cancer. Her insurance is making her wait 6 months to find out what it is. She's a former nurse, too, so she knows how to navigate the system (and is attempting to fight it). So crazy.

  • Oakley
    9 years ago

    Edeevee, my friend went through a similar experience when she desperately needed a hysterectomy. She had to wait and wait before the ins. co. would okay it. She went to the ER twice and the ins. co. still said "not now," while the doctors were ready to cut.

    She finally had the surgery last week and it ended up being complicated.

    As for our insurance, all I know is it's just as expensive as it was before we made the switch. We chose a large deductible but still, I'm afraid to get sick.

    Over the years we've had to switch insurance companies for whatever reason, and all of them accepted our pre-existing conditions. So our family hasn't benefited from anything.

    I think Obama meant well, but his insurance plan is a massive failure because it seemed a bit rushed & definitely not thought out well...to help his "legacy." But that's another topic which I don't want to get into. I just hope the next POTUS comes in and fixes it. LOL

  • edeevee
    9 years ago

    oakley, My friend is going to contact roarah's patient advocacy line today. She tried last night but my stupid fat fingers typed one number wrong on my phone and she ended up calling a HOT BODIES porn site. Oh well. Laughter is good medicine, right?

    As far as Obamacare, it's worked out well for my kids and hasn't made any difference at all for my husband and me. I keep hearing horror stories on the Internet but I've yet to talk to anyone I know personally who has been negatively impacted.

    That doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it does make me wonder if these cases aren't anomalies? Especially because I live in a very conservative area of the country and many of my friends are rabidly anti-Obama. I feel certain they would have been shouting it from the rooftops if they'd been personally injured by the program.

    I only have my own experience to go by but it seems to me that we faced a tremendous amount of problems with healthcare in this country before Obamacare was implemented. (Don't get me started on what my kid went through seven years ago.)

    While the ACA certainly hasn't corrected everything, for my friends and family it has been a step in the right direction. YMMV.

  • anele_gw
    9 years ago

    This is slightly OT, but this article just shows how insurance can be subject to User Error. The ACA definitely has problems (in part due to changes made that were not in the original plan), but this is an HMO matter:

    " Some of the doctors said they wouldn't see her because she was too far along in her pregnancy �" about 30 weeks. A few practices did take the HMO insurance, but they operated as a rotating clinic and couldn't guarantee she would see the same doctor every time. Rachel wanted to establish a relationship with her obstetrician."

    Yes, that's true. MANY OBs will not take a patient that far along for liability reasons. And with every single practice I've gone to, minus the one where there was a solo practitioner (who missed most of the birth anyway!), one always rotates to a degree. It's a very common practice.

    It's great that they used a midwife (I did 4 times), but had there been any complications, the $400 a month would have been absolutely a drop in the bucket compared to the expense, esp. because while pregnant, it covers 2 people. They likely could have used a midwife under the HMO-- I did.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Family Opts Out of ACA

  • melsouth
    9 years ago

    I don't begrudge anyone access to the healthcare they need.

    I'd love for everyone to have excellent healthcare. And rides back and forth to appointments would be especially helpful in the case of my mom, since either my sister or I have to take days off work to drive her to her appointments.

    Great Britain's healthcare sounds wonderful.
    But it isn't free.

    From The Guardian
    Tom Clark
    Wednesday 16 July 2014 13.05 EDT

    "Voters remain wedded to Britain's taxpayer-funded model of healthcare even as NHS leaders question its sustainability, according to a Guardian/ICM poll. Analysis by NHS England and outside experts points to a large funding gap that could reach ã30bn by the end of the decade, and last month 71 leading lights of the health service wrote to the Guardian to warn politicians that failure to level with the public about the black hole before polling day would jeopardise the service's future."

  • tinam61
    9 years ago

    Edeevee - I am appalled at what your friend has gone through! I can honestly say, I have never had a friend or family go through that kind of wait! My MIL recently went through treatment for lymphoma and even though she is on medicare/supplemental - she did not have a long waiting period, did not have to have a second opinion, in fact she had her primary biopsies done within days - with the hospital even doing them early morning CHRISTMAS EVE. I feel almost naive because my family has always been so fortunate with insurance. My father worked for Union Carbide most of his career years and growing up we had medical/dental/vision, etc. As a married couple, my husband and I have had BC/BS for at least 30 years - other than a brief period when we switched to Cigna (because of policy changes). I almost feel ashamed at the good coverage we have had when others have so much trouble. I know it is not my fault, but I agree that EVERYONE should have medical care and good coverage. Because of my employer, we've always carried insurance through my work rather than my husband's. I'm a state/federal employee. After reading this thread, I am very thankful!

    Edeevee, please keep us posted on your friend. I hope she gets help and can be quickly treated.

    tina

  • vedazu
    9 years ago

    Not sure how I stumbled on this thread, but now I'll tell you some experiences in the former USSR and the current Russia. I lived there for many years in the late 80's and 90's, married to a rather famous doctor. Needless to say, it was "top of the line" for me all the time. It was also "top of the line" for the citizens there. What my former husband said seemed to be true: experimental things like transplants or cardiac treatment were much better in the US, but for usual medical situations, of course it was better in the USSR because you could get it for free.

    Fast forward: my (American) son has been employed in St. Petersburg for seven years. They had a baby a few years ago. They paid a thousand dollars for a suite so he could be with her, and they were there for seven days. Not because of any complications, but because that is standard--so they can monitor the child and the mother daily. Then--here's the beauty part--
    for no extra money, on the first day home, their pediatrician came to the house. Weighed the baby, weighed the diapers, created a log that my daughter in law had to maintain for them--how many feedings, how many wet diapers, how many dirty diapers. Second day, an RN came by to monitor the child. Third day, pediatrican back. Then, after that, they rotated every few days until everyone was content with the baby's progress. If the baby had a cold or a fever, you called a phone number and an ambulance would come with a pediatric team to the apartment--and if they could solve the problem there, they would. If the situation (might have) required hospitalization, they were ready to carry the child back to a hospital. All free.
    Well, not free--their paychecks reflect these kinds of services to everyone in the country. The fact that the Russians drink themselves into an early grave is another issue that brings down their stats, of course. But availability of routine care is unbelievable compared to the US. Obamacare is at least a step in the right direction. (My kids spend a lot of time in the US--and were uninsured here until ACA provided them with policies they could afford.)

    Count me in as someone who thinks the government does lots of things very well--I'm happily collecting my Social Security every month. Batabing--in that account second Wednesday of every month like book....

  • TxMarti
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    What court decision, writers block?

  • writersblock (9b/10a)
    9 years ago

    There were several conflicting decisions in different courts that day, marti8a, but the one I was referring to was the federal court decision that subsidies were illegal in states which hadn't set up their own exchanges.

    So under that decision, one of my neighbors, a widow who works at Home Depot, at the local community college, and also as a yoga teacher but who makes average of about $8.50 an hour for all of these, and who was thrilled to be able to afford health insurance for the first time since she got married, will have to pay back the subsidy that made it affordable for her, if the ruling holds.

    It will be especially hard for her since she's spent quite a bit of the little cash she has getting things like new teeth to replace the ones her husband knocked out, help with the partial deafness ditto, and so on now that she had insurance to cover some of those costs. I don't see how she can possibly manage if she has to return all the subsidy money, too.

  • 3katz4me
    9 years ago

    I have a friend who frequently moaned and complained about Obamacare and how it should be repealed. In my opinion it has no small share of problems but at least it's a move to try to make coverage available to more people.

    I asked this person what he planned to do for health insurance when he retired (pre-medicare age) when both he and his wife have preexisting conditions. I explained to this ignorant soul who had always had insurance through his employer that prior to Obamacare he and his wife would likely be unable to get coverage and/or the coverage would exclude the preexisting conditions for some period of time and/or the price would be exorbitant.

    Last time I saw him he was espousing the virtues of Obamacare as he had post-retirement coverage that he would not otherwise have been able to get it.

  • MagdalenaLee
    9 years ago

    I have an acquaintance (DH's friend) who rants and raves about "Obamacare." He said he didn't sign up because it was too expensive - he has a wife and two kids. I happen to know how much money they make so I looked it up. After the subsidy, the annual premium would be $600, plus a max out of pocket of $4500 for a silver plan. That equals $425 per month for the entire family to have medical coverage. Assuming they even need the max out of pocket (just premium is $50/mo!)

    Too much but of course they both have late model cars and the kids have all the latest electronic gadgets on the market.

    Here's the kicker: He recently was in the hospital for a week with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Total cost was $90,000! So now they are having a benefit for him and I was asked to help organize and donate. Well okay . . .

  • awm03
    9 years ago

    My youngest has a pre-existing condition and lives in a state where there is no doctor trained in the treatment my son is getting now. He must go out of state for care. We would actually like for him to continue with his specialist in NYC, who has been monitoring his condition for several years now. My fear is, when he goes off our insurance in two months, that he'll be able to get insurance but it will be useless as it won't pay for his out-of-state/out-of-network needs. Anybody have any advice or suggestions?

  • writersblock (9b/10a)
    9 years ago

    > My fear is, when he goes off our insurance in two months, that he'll be able to get insurance but it will be useless as it won't pay for his out-of-state/out-of-network needs

    Networks are not restricted to a single state. When you are looking a plans you can check to see which facilities in other states are in-network and when you find a plan that seems to suit, just call the specialist's office and ask the if they take xxx insurance. I had blue cross before and I have a blue cross plan now, and there's not much difference in physicians and facilities, just in what is covered (and that's my decision--I was looking for something with a higher deductible and lower premium).

    I would say that if your insurer also offers obamacare plans that your son would be qualify for, the odds are fairly good that his current doctor and facilities would be on it. However, things like prescription coverage might be very different from what he has now. But for younger people there are a lot of gold plans at reasonable prices. I'm in my 50's so that makes a difference in what's available and what it costs.

  • robo (z6a)
    9 years ago

    Canadian here - just wanted to point out our system is actually a lot more economical than yours. We paid $4500 per person in 2011, or 11.9% of our GDP. You spent almost double at $8500 per person or 17.7% of GDP. So in this case, yes, the government is a LOT more cost effective.

    Here are the things that are more expensive:

    1. Administration - about 25% of your cost! which is absolutely sky high compared to other OECD countries. Those billing wings in your hospitals with hundreds of clerks are mere rooms in ours with like five clerks.

    2. Increased costs - your doctors get paid more, your drugs cost more, and your medical equipment costs more as well. Your government has the best leverage, so Medicaid actually pays less for the same person, drug or service than your insurer. We have the Medicaid advantage in that way for our whole country.

    3. You get more care - you get more procedures and more diagnostics, you have more surgeries. If you have a heart attack you are much more likely to get open heart surgery in the States - but your life expectancy afterwards is the same in both countries. I just had to wait a year for an MRI that I cancelled. I didn't really need it and I didn't get it in the end. Frustrating at the time but that's the system actually working for the taxpayer instead of the selfish patient.

    Love, your friendly neighbourhood epidemiology student in the frozen North.

  • voila
    9 years ago

    I worked in a hospital in the US for over 30 years. Do you know who pays for medical care in the US for an uninsured patient? You do, of course, through the higher cost of medical care for insured patients. Why was your CT bill $8k? Because the last three patients did not have insurance and did not pay their bill. Universal healthcare is the only way to fix this mess. If you can afford to exempt yourself from health insurance and pay the fine, you can also pay for the emergency care from a car accident. There will always be people that try to get away with not following the law, feeling themselves above the mandates. The shame is on them.

  • terezosa / terriks
    9 years ago

    If you can afford to exempt yourself from health insurance and pay the fine, you can also pay for the emergency care from a car accident.

    I agree! I don't understand people who say that they would rather pay the fine. Paying the fine won't give them health insurance!

  • golddust
    9 years ago

    Loving my ACA insurance!! My Dr thinks a single pay option is the way to go.

    I am paying about $50. More per month for much better coverage.

  • kswl2
    9 years ago

    "I agree! I don't understand people who say that they would rather pay the fine. Paying the fine won't give them health insurance!"

    That's because they would rather just use the hospital emergency room and not pay their bills----then cry that they were bankrupted by medical costs. It's fraudulent.

  • edeevee
    9 years ago

    amw, You might not ever see this but, just in case ... My son also sees a specialist out of state. Right now, due to a glitch in the system, he doesn't qualify for subsidized care so we purchased a plan through our regular agent. Once the glitch gets fixed I don't know what we'll do as our state has limited subsidized plans available and none of them cover his doctor. Maybe we'll just keep helping him pay for the current plan. It's $313/mo including dental but the peace of mind may be worth it.

  • awm03
    9 years ago

    thanks so much, edeevee, that's interesting to know.

  • arcy_gw
    9 years ago

    This is just not that difficult. Many many many people feel it is THEIR choice to spend their money as they see fit. One of the things they choose to not spend money on IS INSURANCE. Experience has taught them it is not necessary in this country. They will get care and someone else will pick up the bill if medical care is NEEDED.
    I just went back to work after my summer break. Discovered as of 2015 my employer will be forced to cover over 100 part time employees it hasn't in the past. The possibilities are, all our hours will be cut to keep us under the needed 130 hrs a month or they will get us MINIMAL, EXPENSIVE coverage. If I qualify for Obama Care my husband's work will cut me from his policy so I will be paying THROUGH THE NOSE for poor coverage. How is it working for me? IT STINKS!! My take home pay will be hugely effected, I will have poor coverage, I will have the headache of keeping track to two DIFFERENT policies in one household all so a person "in need" can also have coverage HE DOESN'T WANT AND WONT PURCHASE. The only solution will be for me to voluntarily cut my hours to stay under the 130 a month. It is a good thing my income is supplemental. Thanks Obama, thanks for NOTHING!!

  • MagdalenaLee
    9 years ago

    so I will be paying THROUGH THE NOSE for poor coverage.

    I assume you are speaking as someone who already went to the ACA website, filled out the application and can see what coverage and at what premium is available to you?

    ---------------------------------

    Prior to ACA, I had to pay for my mammogram because I never met my deductible. Today, I had my "wellness" mammogram and it was so nice to not have to pay anything out of pocket. BTW, my premium is half what it used to be.

    Anyway, something interesting happened. I've been getting yearly mammograms since I was 30. My breasts are riddled with lipomas so as a precaution I get screened every year plus an automatic sonogram.

    My poor boobs have been poked, biopsied and aspirated many times so I've felt that the addition of the sonogram every year is just overkill. We know what they are, we know what they feel like and what they look like. They are completely different than other types of tumors.

    So I get the mammo and the technician starts complaining about how Obama isn't going to let me get a sonogram unless something shows up on the mammogram. She actually said "Obama" and didn't say a word about the insurance company. I said not getting an unnecessary test made sense to me and she just looked at me like I had three heads.

  • deegw
    9 years ago

    We have a no insurance period of time between the sale DH's old company and the purchase of a new company. DH has an arrhythmia and DD has asthma. Before the affordable care act, there was no way that we would be able to get private insurance without those conditions being excluded.

    I found the healthcare.gov website to be surprisingly user friendly and efficient. I opted for the least expensive plan because of the issue of starting a deductible in October and again in January. We will be paying slightly less than we did with DH's employer sponsored plan but our deductible is much higher.

    I know there are glitches and issues and corresponding economic fall out. But for our particular situation, "Obama care" has worked beautifully.

  • edeevee
    9 years ago

    arcy, Have you stopped to consider who is really making you "pay through the nose"? There is nothing in the ACA that says employers can't cover spouses. It's a choice your husband's company is making. Maybe he should look for work with a business that believes a good benefit plan is an effective method of attracting and keeping good employees?

  • kswl2
    9 years ago

    Interesting, Arcy. So it's all right for people to choose not to pay for insurance coverage, and then when they NEED medical care, to dump the bill on the taxpayer?

  • sixtyohno
    9 years ago

    And just remember that there are people running for office in America who claim they will destroy Obamacare, but keep the ACA. My favorite sign ever was "keep the socialist government out of my Social Security and Medicare"