Skip to main content

View Diary: No 'rate shock' for Obamacare in California (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think his prediction and his consequent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North

    interpretation of the article are way off.

    Full coverage for a 57 yr old male is ridiculously cheap.  What he has not taken into account is the amount that his employer is putting into his plan.  It could be anywhere from 400 to 900 dollars a month.

    ALso if his employer was to drop coverage they would have to play a penalty of up to $3000 a year per employee I believe.

    Furthermore he needs to define full coverage.  The silver plan in the CA is by no means a fig leaf plan.

    Right man, right job and right time

    by Ianb007 on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:42:42 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Compared to 'no' coverage, it might not be. (0+ / 0-)

      But what if he has health insurance like I had at my very first serious job with a railroad, which paid 100% of my premium, and 100% of my costs.

      Now, that was over three decades ago.

      But, maybe Joe has one of those excellent union so-called 'cadillac plans.'  

      You suppose?  I don't really have a clue.

      But I must say, I would guess that he has one of two scenarios--because of the very low premium that he pays (taking him at him word).


      1--His insurance plan is only catastrophic coverage (due to the low premium).  But that doesn't comport with his description of a 'full coverage' plan. or,

      2--He has something very close to a 'cadillac plan.'  IOW, excellent benefits at a very low cost to him, since his employer foots most of the bill for his premium.

      And, of course, those health plans are very common to unions.  

      The reason that my 'railroad' plan was so excellent, was that (at the time) railroads were very heavily unionized.

      Of course, this is only 'speculation' on my part.  

      But why not--everybody else seems to be doing it, LOL!

      At any rate, I'm not sure how any of us can fairly 'pass judgment' on his comment, unless we actually know all the facts.


      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      by musiccitymollie on Fri May 24, 2013 at 07:45:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Different situations for different people (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie, Minnesota Deb

        Mollie, that discussion of one person's specific case doesn't get us very far, I think.

        I agree that anyone who has first-rate health coverage from an employer, and pays only a minimal part of the premiums himself, will be most unhappy if the employer decides to stop providing coverage as an employment benefit. Whether the sad employee who has lost such a fine benefits goes to the really private market or to ACA's insurance marketplace, he'll find himself paying more than the small amount he used to pay. I hope that such an employer does raise the person's compensation in some way to help offset that added cost of living.

        The real question for me is whether people without health benefits or with minimal health benefits are going to be able to get good, affordable, insurance through the Obamacare marketplace.

        So far, the California numbers are looking hopeful, anyway.

        •  Hey, I agree, TN. I somewhat regret that I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          True North

          even mentioned his post, since some folks (not you) attempted to attack his credibility, and he wasn't there to defend himself.

          So I jumped in to defend him.  Seems like the least that I could do, since I brought up his comment, in the first place.  ;-D

          But, hey--looks like I nailed it, actually.

          A couple of hours ago, I ran across a post of Mr. Bacon's  from this spring.  Not going to put his comment up again (to have folks go after it), but he does explain his 'work background' (even names his employer).

          And my 'guess' was correct.  

          Without giving any of the specifics, let it suffice to say that he is a 'public employee.'

          So it is reasonable that he could come up with 'the short end of the stick,' so to speak.

          BTW, I share your sentiments.

          I also want all Americans to have health insurance.  I'm a major proponent of the best and most equitable system--Medicare-For-All.

          There's no resentment on my part that coverage will be extended to those who formerly did not have it.

          Or that subsidies will be available to some--although MR M and I will report too much income to qualify for a subsidy.

          But, it is only realistic to recognize that there is 'a limit to how much more that folks under Group plans will be willing to pay,' without getting their danders up.

          And it's not a matter of being 'mean.'

          It's a matter of how much an individual or family can 'afford' to have their premiums go up, before they are under financial stress.

          Hey, good luck with the Health Exchange in California.

          Personally, I believe that this bill has created so many inequities that it may be somewhat of a 'fiasco' upon roll out, if the Administration and HHS don't quickly address some of these issues.

          Maybe they will.  I sincerely hope they do.

          And also, I appreciate the fact that we can somewhat disagree, without 'being disagreeable.'

          I hope you saw my reply to your comment on the FPL's.  I've furnished the tables for the 2013 FPL.

          According to the information that I found, it does not make it clear that these tables will apply to the ACA--but, surely, they will.  I hope so.  

          In Alaska, it would mean a FPL of $14,350, annual income for one person, compared to a FPL of $11,490, annual income for one person in the Lower Contiguous States and D.C.

          And that would have to help!  ;-)


          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          by musiccitymollie on Sat May 25, 2013 at 12:44:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Medicare for all! Me too! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'd love to see Medicare for all.

            I'd be happy if they'd just start moving in that direction, maybe lowering the voluntary age to join to 55 or 50. That would help older workers who have lost their jobs and run into age discrimination in getting new ones. A lot of them are holding on by their fingernails until they reach 65.

            Until that happy day...

            I did see the FPL numbers you provided. That will make a difference for the people living in high-priced states.

            As to employees who lose health benefits: you're right, public employees may be particularly vulnerable if they lose their health insurance through work, as the employer is unlikely to provide extra compensation to cover it. The theory in some quarters seems to be that governments don't have to compete with anybody else to get excellent staff.

            Thanks for all the info!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site