Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
  • entries
    20
  • comments
    88
  • views
    4,535

Trigger Warning: Fuck Obamacare

Maggie Mae

3,059 views

I was a huge supporter of Obama because of his health insurance plan. And then we got stuck with "Obamacare" which is anything but affordable if you don't live in one of the big cities. My "insurance" is now three times as much as it was three years ago, and offers less. Four years ago I didn't have health insurance and I think I might go back to that. 

So now I get to decide if I want to pay into my retirement plan or pay for insurance. OR, I can just not have health insurance and still pay a $695 fee. FUN TIMES. LOVE IT. 

 

 

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1


16 Comments


Recommended Comments

ClaraOswin

Posted

We looked into Obamacare when my husband was laid off and yeah...it is certainly not affordable, IMO. My parents are retired and now paying an arm and leg for crappy insurance. It sucks.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Maggie Mae

Posted

4 minutes ago, ClaraOswin said:

We looked into Obamacare when my husband was laid off and yeah...it is certainly not affordable, IMO. My parents are retired and now paying an arm and leg for crappy insurance. It sucks.

 

I know! I hear that it IS affordable for some people, but those people are not me, or anyone I know. I was such a big supporter of it, too. I'm just so upset right now at the skyrocketing rates. REGARDLESS of the reasons or who's at fault, I think it sucks for me and a lot of people right now. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
clueliss

Posted

I don't need Obamacare but I was not a fan from the word go because I felt it punished people by essentially forcing them to carry insurance (because a penalty if you don't opt in is the same to me as paying insurance)

Share this comment


Link to comment
WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?

Posted

I'm sorry you're facing such sucky choices, @Maggie Mae. We can only afford health insurance because we get it through our state exchange, but I know that isn't true for everyone. One of my siblings has insurance through work, one sibling is uninsured (makes too much money for Medicaid and not enough to buy from the exchange), and the other one only has a policy with a huge deductible so that their family doesn't have to pay a penalty. ACA is helping some people, like us, and screwing the rest over. I wonder what we'll have in a year?

Share this comment


Link to comment
Maggie Mae

Posted

40 minutes ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

I'm sorry you're facing such sucky choices, @Maggie Mae. We can only afford health insurance because we get it through our state exchange, but I know that isn't true for everyone. One of my siblings has insurance through work, one sibling is uninsured (makes too much money for Medicaid and not enough to buy from the exchange), and the other one only has a policy with a huge deductible so that their family doesn't have to pay a penalty. ACA is helping some people, like us, and screwing the rest over. I wonder what we'll have in a year?

 

Me too! I also wonder what our other options could have been? 

I remember when it first showed up and my ex bf (this was a BIG part of why we are no longer together, that, and it was a really unhealthy relationship for me) was PISSED because he was losing his premium options (that he barely used) because his company saw a way to cut costs and blame it on someone else. I was so annoyed with him for not "getting" that it wasn't "Obamacare" but his company. But now, 6? years later or whatever, I'm super pissed off too. And not necessarily at the ACA, although I do think it sucks. We should have real health care like other developed nations. There are a lot of factors that caused this situation, but right now I'm just kind of ragey about the whole thing and want to blame something for the unfairness. 

I know a big part of the problem with the costs in my state is that there is no competition. There is only one company listed on the state exchange. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
cindyluvs24

Posted

Maybe someone can explain to me why people are opposed to a single-payer system?  If they have spiffy jobs with spiffy coverage - great.  Are they saying some people aren't worth treating?  Are they implying that it's better to be untreated or go bankrupt in order to defend market economics?   My personal pet peeve is with NJ - we provide state employees with lots of insurance options.  The most wonderful plan is from Horizon (NJ Direct 15 I love you)  and its only offered to state employees.  The employee pays for a third of the premium with the state kicking in the other  2/3 as a job perq.  This plan pays for 100% of inpatient hospitalization, the prescription coverage is second to none, etc.  It is the ONLY reason my husband and I did not go bankrupt and have to sell our home to finance his cancer treatment.      When i looked for it on the open market, I was told the they only offer it to State employees.  Why can't NJ tell Horizon the the entire state is a group, negotiate a price and make it available to the public (who is subsidizing the state workers' coverage anyway)  But Governor Pig Boy didn't want to do that.  Of course he had his gastric bypass paid for by the taxpayers under that plan, but expanding Medicaid or the like wouldn't appeal to him.   Rant over.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Grimalkin

Posted

    We did not even have the option to buy our kids insurance. My husband consults and is changing careers. We planned on him taking a huge salary cut in the next few years as he switched over. We have money saved. On paper we are considerd poverty level for a family of six. We called up BCBS, but we had to go through the market place, my younger kids were put on All Kids which sucks, and we are offerd free school lunches. Nuts.

      So my husband's medication which is an antacid for his Barrets Syndrome is $400.00 a month. Now the manufacturer will give out coupons for out of pocket payers, but this a reason why insurance is so costly. We are talking fucking ant acids. The over the counter equivalent is $30.00 a month for Nexium, not the same as his prescription, but doc okayed it.

eta- sorry for random rant. So frustrating. Luckily we are pretty healthy and haven't needed much. I'm not happy with not having a choice.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Maggie Mae

Posted

38 minutes ago, cindyluvs24 said:

Maybe someone can explain to me why people are opposed to a single-payer system?  If they have spiffy jobs with spiffy coverage - great.  Are they saying some people aren't worth treating?  Are they implying that it's better to be untreated or go bankrupt in order to defend market economics?   My personal pet peeve is with NJ - we provide state employees with lots of insurance options.  The most wonderful plan is from Horizon (NJ Direct 15 I love you)  and its only offered to state employees.  The employee pays for a third of the premium with the state kicking in the other  2/3 as a job perq.  This plan pays for 100% of inpatient hospitalization, the prescription coverage is second to none, etc.  It is the ONLY reason my husband and I did not go bankrupt and have to sell our home to finance his cancer treatment.      When i looked for it on the open market, I was told the they only offer it to State employees.  Why can't NJ tell Horizon the the entire state is a group, negotiate a price and make it available to the public (who is subsidizing the state workers' coverage anyway)  But Governor Pig Boy didn't want to do that.  Of course he had his gastric bypass paid for by the taxpayers under that plan, but expanding Medicaid or the like wouldn't appeal to him.   Rant over.

 

People - individual people who aren't in the insurance industry - are generally opposed to single payer because of a propaganda campaign that has caused them to believe that a) the US has the bestest most modern health care in the world because of competition and if we go single payer no one will want to invent new medicines and b.) that  single payer is really expensive and will cause taxes to go up which means less money, and c.) that people in single payer countries might not get the newest best treatments for cancer and things, and d.) death panels. They believe that in SP countries there is a panel of people whose job it is to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. Thanks, Sarah Palin. I mean, it's not like we don't currently have "insurance companies" who hire actuaries who perform complex calculations to determine if the ROI of paying for a treatment will help someone or not. 

Also the insurance companies don't really want to go out of business and the people who work for them don't want to lose their jobs. (And my dad's best friend sells insurance so sometimes these conversations get really hard for people. I mean, I *don't* want anyone, much less someone who went to every one of my "milestone" parties and events growing up, to lose their job. But at the same time, insurance is really annoying and difficult and not a great innovative product. 

1 hour ago, SilverBeach said:

Are subsidies an option to reduce costs?

The number I found (that was the same price as my employer insurance) was with the subsidies. That I might not be eligible for, as the number I put in for my income was a couple of thousand less than I actually made last year (I had forgotten that I got a raise as I put all of the new income into my retirement plan. Which is matched up to 10% by my company. I hate to drop that back down, it's basically free money. But health care is also important, and money is really tight right now because of the economy in my state. (Everyone else got out of the recession that started in 2008, my state is now getting hit.) 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Georgiana

Posted

I, while a FIRM believer in universal healthcare, have opposed Obamacare from the start because I think it is a terrible solution to the problem at hand.

While it DOES provide coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and extended coverage to lower income groups, it does so AT THE EXPENSE of Middle America.  People who make too much to qualify for the subsidized programs but who still do not have large amounts of disposable income are the ones getting hit the hardest.  Really, unless you make enough that a few extra thousands a year is nothing to you, this is probably not a good thing for your family.

This was a nice idea, but it was so poorly implemented that overall, it HURT more Americans than it helped.  And that's not OK in a democracy (or anywhere).  It just isn't.  

I don't think we are ever going to see a good solution to this problem until we are willing to go after the ROOT of the problem and regulate the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to a far greater degree.  When we start to actually regulate medical costs, then and only then will we be able to take steps to make healthcare and health coverage actually AFFORDABLE for many Americans.  But THAT'S where the trimming of the fat needs to come from.  Not from the wallets of other average Americans who are just trying to get by.  

Share this comment


Link to comment
laPapessaGiovanna

Posted (edited)

On 15/12/2016 at 4:38 AM, Maggie Mae said:

People - individual people who aren't in the insurance industry - are generally opposed to single payer because of a propaganda campaign that has caused them to believe that a) the US has the bestest most modern health care in the world because of competition and if we go single payer no one will want to invent new medicines and b.) that  single payer is really expensive and will cause taxes to go up which means less money, and c.) that people in single payer countries might not get the newest best treatments for cancer and things, and d.) death panels. They believe that in SP countries there is a panel of people whose job it is to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. Thanks, Sarah Palin. I mean, it's not like we don't currently have "insurance companies" who hire actuaries who perform complex calculations to determine if the ROI of paying for a treatment will help someone or not. 

This is why many Eurpeans think Americans are nuts. To be clear I don't, but I also can't see how American citizens can delude themselves into thinking that the insurance system is ok because of competition. My state maskes deals with big pharma companies that need to agree to contain their prices in order to acces to a market with 65 millions  of consumers. This means that the state saves money on life saving cancer/diabetes/mental illnesses/cardiocirculatory deseases/hiv/hcv/preventative care/vaccines etc treatments that are entirely covered by the NHS. Pharma companies compensate earning more with OTC meds that cost more here than in other countries,  but it's a good compromise imho, if you only need an OTC med you probably aren't dying and you can often do with its generic equivalent or without altogether. 

As for the US having the bestest health care ever I don't know, the only certainty is that you spend the most to have a lot less

www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Edited by laPapessaGiovanna

Share this comment


Link to comment
DaniLouisiana

Posted

The only things I, personally, like about Obamacare are 1)our insurance must pay for Kiddo's transition medication-they can't get off by saying that since my hubs (carries insurance) works for a Catholic hospital and they don't approve of people like my son, they don't have to pay. 2) pre-exsisting conditions are covered-back problems for hubs, osteo and rheumatoid arthritis for me. 3)Kiddo covered til he's 26. I hope the overall keeps these items. Our insurance right now says we see doctors affliated with the hospitals my hubs works for and the family would really prefer if we could see a different rheumatologist.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Grimalkin

Posted

Well, we just signed up for insurance through the Marketplace again. Good news is we are no longer onCHIP (state insurance for kids) so we get to go to our regular doctors. @Georgiana, I totally agree with you regarding the hit middle America takes with Obamacare. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Grimalkin

Posted

I want to mention that CHIP is not terrible. Last year we needed to get my oldest some help for mental health and it was all covered no problem. We are for the most part healthy and I shouldn't complain.

Share this comment


Link to comment
alexandracabot

Posted

On 12/14/2016 at 7:13 PM, clueliss said:

I don't need Obamacare but I was not a fan from the word go because I felt it punished people by essentially forcing them to carry insurance (because a penalty if you don't opt in is the same to me as paying insurance)

This is the ONLY way that Obamacare can ever work. You need the individual mandate to force healthy people to get insurance; otherwise, they won't get it until they're sick, and the entire system won't function.

When you didn't have the individual mandate, you had insurance companies refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, which was obviously worse.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Pecansforeveryone

      Posted

      32 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

      All of these questions about homeschooling are bringing a very dark question into my mind. I wonder after how many generations, the offspring of the fundies we follow will be functionally illiterate? The first generation moms had high school or even college degrees. We look at Jill Rodrigues and her homeschooling as an example of a second generation, which we can get some idea of her schooling ability by the way Nurie writes. Nurie homeschooling a large brood of her own terrifies me.

      I worry about the exact same thing with the Rodrigues children. Someone once guessed that Nurie is writing at a 4rth grade level. I find that believable which is 4 years less education than the Amish! There is no way that is a functional adult level of education, not a snowballs chance in hell. 

    • louisa05

      Posted

      @SongRed7, to quote Elaine Benes, "I don't know how you guys walk around with those things." 

      • Upvote 2
      • Haha 2
    • PennySycamore

      Posted

      The formulae are:

      F = 9/5 (C) +32

      C = 5/9 (F-32)

      The doubling of the degrees Celsius to get the Fahrenheit temperature is pretty close though.

    • SongRed7

      Posted (edited)

      3 hours ago, Free Jana Duggar said:

      Oh y'all, I just can't with today's "men invented everything"  post.  This has got to be in the Lori Top Ten of Stupidity, (and she's just got to talk about a man's sex drive again).  

      Yeah...I just don't get it. What's the point?   OK...men have more testosterone. No one is arguing that.  Men have invented things. So have women.  Maybe men have invented more things, because traditionally MEN limited WOMEN in the things they could do (especially when it come to academics.) 

      And again, what with the football reference.  It seems Lori and Ken and always using football analogies and examples. Once a week (it was twice for Lori this week) one of them talks about football.  Ken once said child birth was no big deal and men could handle the pain because "football" so they know pain. 

      Despite all of Lori's protestation, I don't know anyone who thinks men and women aren't different. Of course they are different.  But what Lori is arguing is that makes men BETTER than women. No, Lori. It just means they are different.  And it doesn't mean women wish they were men.  I'm not jealous of my husband's or any other man's testosterone.  And i am really GLAD I wasn't born with a penis between my legs.  I can't even imagine how uncomfortable it is and all the adjusting and shifting one has to do as a matter of routine. :pb_lol:

       

      Edited by SongRed7
      • Upvote 2
      • Haha 1
    • refugee

      Posted (edited)

      3 hours ago, BobJonesBabe said:

      Yikes!! What is that supposed to mean?! That he's merely affirming the taste of Spanky's "God is sovereign..." or, something more nefarious?!  

      Sounded to me like it was claiming “god was punishing RC Jr by killing these two mothers of many, bereaving their families, etc.” Really f...ed up thinking.

      Edited by refugee
      Clarification. Not my thinking, but the writer’s.
      • Upvote 1


×