Healthcare Exchanges Are Live. How's it Looking For You?

ATB
ATB
I haven't be able to get the site to work as once i get to the security questions, the fields are blank.

Very interested to see what my options are.

Anyone else run through it?
«134

Comments

  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    I looked and all the plans would be unaffordable for me as they are massively more expensive then what I pay right now. So what that means as more and more employers shove people off to the government plans people will get royally screwed. I know if my employer did that I couldn't afford to have insurance.
  • Isgrimnur
    Isgrimnur
    GT Member
    If your employer shoved you off, you would likely be in a position to have the government subsidize your costs.
  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    on 1380759805:

    If your employer shoved you off, you would likely be in a position to have the government subsidize your costs.


    I doubt it, as a single person no dependents all I would qualify for is a nice fine from the government for not being able to afford insurance.
  • CeeKay
    CeeKay
    GT Member
    all I ever get is:

    We have a lot of visitors on the site right now.
    Please stay on this page.

    We're working to make the experience better, and we don’t want you to lose your place in line. We’ll send you to the login page as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience!


    what the hell, is this a MMO?
  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    I would not be surprised at all if the government was making the sites look a lot busier then they really are by intentionally slowing things down.
  • Fireball1244
    Fireball1244
    GT Member
    I can't sign up for an account until open enrollment for Federal employees. We learned today that we will all be moving to the DC Small Business Employee Exchange, so I'll be shopping there despite living in Northern Virginia. I can't see the actual plans unless I sign up for an account, but I can run the calculator and its rough estimates seem to be in line with what my current coverage costs.

    On our campaign, we presently have a small business policy for the campaign staffers. If we were to end that, and they were to purchase equivalent coverage on Covered California, their premiums would be cheaper than what they are now for equivalent coverage. We might do that to save the campaign money.
  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    I can't imagine what you all pay for insurance now if you are finding stuff cheaper. I pay about 70 bucks a month for my insurance currently, and the cheapest equivalent plan I found on the government exchange was 256 a month.
  • Isgrimnur
    Isgrimnur
    GT Member
    on 1380760637:

    on 1380759805:

    If your employer shoved you off, you would likely be in a position to have the government subsidize your costs.


    I doubt it, as a single person no dependents all I would qualify for is a nice fine from the government for not being able to afford insurance.


    Well, if you're at 4x the federal poverty level ($45,960), I'm not going to feel too bad for you.
  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    I am not anywhere close to that, but I also don't expect the government to pay for any part of my health insurance.
  • Ironrod
    Ironrod
    GT Member
    on 1380761175:

    I would not be surprised at all if the government was making the sites look a lot busier then they really are by intentionally slowing things down.


    I read it was a Republican DOS attack, but I don't think the tea party is smart enough for that.

    on 1380762396:

    I can't imagine what you all pay for insurance now if you are finding stuff cheaper. I pay about 70 bucks a month for my insurance currently, and the cheapest equivalent plan I found on the government exchange was 256 a month.


    My wife pays $600/mo to cover two of us in our late 50s in good health. Her employer subsidizes 50%. Last time we priced comparable non-employer insurance through the exchange it was $1200/mo, so that's right on. This was about 3 years ago. We could have gotten the bronze level plan for a little under $1000. I'd consider anything under $600 to be dirt cheap.

    At the time we earned 3x the poverty rate so we didn't qualify for any state subsidies (Romneycare rules were a little different from Obamacare). But at the same time the state acknowledged that we could not afford insurance and exempted us from the penalty. Too rich for subsidies, too poor to pay retail. Thanks, Romney!

    on 1380763492:

    I am not anywhere close to that, but I also don't expect the government to pay for any part of my health insurance.


    Do you expect your employer to pay for part of your health insurance?
  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    Its part of the overall pay and benefits from my employer at this time, so yes they do pay for part of my insurance. So as long as it is part of that package they give me in exchange for my work, yes I do expect them to pay.
  • raydude
    raydude
    GT Member
    on 1380765728:

    Its part of the overall pay and benefits from my employer at this time, so yes they do pay for part of my insurance. So as long as it is part of that package they give me in exchange for my work, yes I do expect them to pay.


    Then you have nothing to worry about do you?

    So what that means as more and more employers shove people off to the government plans people will get royally screwed. I know if my employer did that I couldn't afford to have insurance.
  • Ironrod
    Ironrod
    GT Member
    From what you said you pay I'd guess that your employer is subsidizing a very generous 80% or so, and that's great. If your employer decided they didn't want that responsibility anymore and cut you loose, would you: look for another job? pay full retail for a non-group individual policy? or shop your state's exchange? Assume that you're a rational consumer who seeks to minimize your out-of-pocket cost and, unlike Rip, you actually want healthcare.

    I can remember when employer-provided insurance was free and nobody had ever heard of copays or deductibles. Health insurance as a perk of employment made sense in the 1960s. Nowadays it's a lot harder to make a case for keeping that burden on employers. So 'splain to me why it's good when businesses subsidize healthcare and bad when government does it.
  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    on 1380777961:

    From what you said you pay I'd guess that your employer is subsidizing a very generous 80% or so, and that's great. If your employer decided they didn't want that responsibility anymore and cut you loose, would you: look for another job? pay full retail for a non-group individual policy? or shop your state's exchange? Assume that you're a rational consumer who seeks to minimize your out-of-pocket cost and, unlike Rip, you actually want healthcare.

    I can remember when employer-provided insurance was free and nobody had ever heard of copays or deductibles. Health insurance as a perk of employment made sense in the 1960s. Nowadays it's a lot harder to make a case for keeping that burden on employers. So 'splain to me why it's good when businesses subsidize healthcare and bad when government does it.


    Yes we all know that finding another job is so easy and anyone can do it at the drop of a hat. I already looked at the exchanges and as I said my price for insurance would quadruple from what I pay now, making it unaffordable for me. I just see more and more employers deciding to not offer insurance anymore as Obamacare become fully implemented. As for why I think its good to work for and get insurance as part of my benefits from a job rather then have other taxpayers pay for it shouldn't be something that a rational person needs explained to them.
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    on 1380761175:

    I would not be surprised at all if the government was making the sites look a lot busier then they really are by intentionally slowing things down.


    I hear they also faked a moon landing or two right before they did this.
  • Fireball1244
    Fireball1244
    GT Member
    on 1380765728:

    Its part of the overall pay and benefits from my employer at this time, so yes they do pay for part of my insurance. So as long as it is part of that package they give me in exchange for my work, yes I do expect them to pay.


    So you're comparing the portion of the premium you pay now, when your employer pays the majority of it, and complaining that the unsubsidized amount on the exchange is higher than that? How is that a logical argument?
  • Fireball1244
    Fireball1244
    GT Member
    on 1380783794:

    I already looked at the exchanges and as I said my price for insurance would quadruple from what I pay now, making it unaffordable for me.


    It would also quadruple if your employer decided to stop paying for any of your health coverage and passed the full premium on to you.

    I just see more and more employers deciding to not offer insurance anymore as Obamacare become fully implemented.


    That is hardly a trend that came about because of the Affordable Care Act. Health care costs have been skyrocketing, and businesses dropping insurance or increasing the employee's share of premiums began in earnest more than a decade ago.
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    Every year I receive a new memo from my employer about how rates have increased and how much more they have to deduct from my paycheck in order to cover these increases.
  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    So I calculated what it would cost for my family of 5 so I could compare the premiums to the horrible money toilet that was my last plan at my previous job, and it looks like I would be paying about $100 less a month for slightly better coverage. I think this underscores how shitty the coverage was at my last job more than anything, but it definitely looks like a YMMV situation.

    Thankfully, my new job pays 100% of premiums for me and my whole family, and the plan is stellar. When I was briefed on the coverage a couple of months ago my jaw literally hit the floor and any doubts of taking the job flew out the window.

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • Autistic Angel
    Autistic Angel
    GT Member
    on 1380762396:

    I can't imagine what you all pay for insurance now if you are finding stuff cheaper. I pay about 70 bucks a month for my insurance currently, and the cheapest equivalent plan I found on the government exchange was 256 a month.



    The last time I was self insured, my monthly insurance payment was exactly $265.11. I also know, based on his posts over the years, that I am younger, in better shape, and have substantially fewer pre-existing conditions than brettmcd.

    He is very angry that, if he were ever to lose his current health insurance, "ObamaCare" would be too expensive and he'd have to go without. He'll also complain about the fine, as though we haven't already explained there's no penalty for refusing to pay it. The other part he's being willfully ignorant about is the simple fact that if he'd gone shopping for health insurance on the open market just a few years ago, brettmcd would have been paying a hell of a lot more than $256/mo...assuming he could find anyone to insure him at all.

    There are a lot of hypertensive, overweight Type-2 diabetics in this country, and a very small percentage of them are getting $70/mo coverage from brettmcd's employer. The idea that we should cling to the crumbling old system where they all get their super-costly health plans rescinded the first time they suffer a heart attack because one dude lucked his way into a comprehensive health plan at one employer doesn't fly.

    And before you get all hyper-defensive about someone "mocking" your health, brettmcd, at least TRY to comprehend the difference between judging someone's situation or saying, "Hey man, that guy deserves affordable healthcare just like everyone else!"

    -Autistic Angel
  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    on 1380823698:

    as though we haven't already explained there's no penalty for refusing to pay it.


    Explain please. This is the first I've heard of this claim.
  • Ironrod
    Ironrod
    GT Member
    on 1380783794:

    As for why I think its good to work for and get insurance as part of my benefits from a job rather then have other taxpayers pay for it shouldn't be something that a rational person needs explained to them.


    Have you thought about how much more competitive American business would be if it didn't have to subsidize health insurance?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    on 1380832059:

    on 1380823698:

    as though we haven't already explained there's no penalty for refusing to pay it.


    Explain please. This is the first I've heard of this claim.


    There is a $99 penalty, but it was stated they aren't going to put resources toward anyone in jail or anything for not paying it.
  • Autistic Angel
    Autistic Angel
    GT Member
    on 1380832059:

    on 1380823698:

    as though we haven't already explained there's no penalty for refusing to pay it.


    Explain please. This is the first I've heard of this claim.



    Link.

    on 1372887181:

    While Eco-Logic continues his victory lap celebrating this breaking news that the individual mandate portion of Affordable Care Act will not be enforced until 2015, let's all take a moment to remember that the law was specifically written to forbid any enforcement mechanism at all.


    (g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE
    (1) IN GENERAL
    The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

    (2) SPECIAL RULES
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
    (A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES
    In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

    (B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES
    The Secretary shall not—
    (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

    (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.



    What that florid section there means is that the Affordable Healthcare Act doesn't simply omit mention of consequences for refusing to pay the individual penalties -- it explicitly states that there are no legal or financial consequences whatsoever. Eco-Logic is literally celebrating a delay in the date when the federal government will continue *not* enforcing an individual mandate to carry personal insurance.

    This isn't new news, by the way -- it's been an oft-discussed element of the bill since the day it was passed.



    -Autistic Angel
  • CeeKay
    CeeKay
    GT Member
    well, finally got to the email verification phase. clicked on it seconds after I received it and got this:

    Oops. You didn't check your email in time.

    You should've gotten an email from the Marketplace with a link, but too much time has passed for that link to work. Re-enter your information now, and we'll send you another email. Check your email soon, and click the link in the email to create your Marketplace account. If you've already verified your email address, you can log in If you've already verified your email address, you can log in here.


    so, apparently you have a window of about 10 seconds to click on the link...
  • brettmcd
    brettmcd
    GT Member
    on 1380823698:

    on 1380762396:

    I can't imagine what you all pay for insurance now if you are finding stuff cheaper. I pay about 70 bucks a month for my insurance currently, and the cheapest equivalent plan I found on the government exchange was 256 a month.



    The last time I was self insured, my monthly insurance payment was exactly $265.11. I also know, based on his posts over the years, that I am younger, in better shape, and have substantially fewer pre-existing conditions than brettmcd.

    He is very angry that, if he were ever to lose his current health insurance, "ObamaCare" would be too expensive and he'd have to go without. He'll also complain about the fine, as though we haven't already explained there's no penalty for refusing to pay it. The other part he's being willfully ignorant about is the simple fact that if he'd gone shopping for health insurance on the open market just a few years ago, brettmcd would have been paying a hell of a lot more than $256/mo...assuming he could find anyone to insure him at all.

    There are a lot of hypertensive, overweight Type-2 diabetics in this country, and a very small percentage of them are getting $70/mo coverage from brettmcd's employer. The idea that we should cling to the crumbling old system where they all get their super-costly health plans rescinded the first time they suffer a heart attack because one dude lucked his way into a comprehensive health plan at one employer doesn't fly.

    And before you get all hyper-defensive about someone "mocking" your health, brettmcd, at least TRY to comprehend the difference between judging someone's situation or saying, "Hey man, that guy deserves affordable healthcare just like everyone else!"

    -Autistic Angel


    Wrong about everything AND making light of the medical conditions I have because I can't be as healthy as you are. You are a piece of work there AA.
  • Autistic Angel
    Autistic Angel
    GT Member
    on 1380834721:

    on 1380823698:

    on 1380762396:

    I can't imagine what you all pay for insurance now if you are finding stuff cheaper. I pay about 70 bucks a month for my insurance currently, and the cheapest equivalent plan I found on the government exchange was 256 a month.



    The last time I was self insured, my monthly insurance payment was exactly $265.11. I also know, based on his posts over the years, that I am younger, in better shape, and have substantially fewer pre-existing conditions than brettmcd.

    He is very angry that, if he were ever to lose his current health insurance, "ObamaCare" would be too expensive and he'd have to go without. He'll also complain about the fine, as though we haven't already explained there's no penalty for refusing to pay it. The other part he's being willfully ignorant about is the simple fact that if he'd gone shopping for health insurance on the open market just a few years ago, brettmcd would have been paying a hell of a lot more than $256/mo...assuming he could find anyone to insure him at all.

    There are a lot of hypertensive, overweight Type-2 diabetics in this country, and a very small percentage of them are getting $70/mo coverage from brettmcd's employer. The idea that we should cling to the crumbling old system where they all get their super-costly health plans rescinded the first time they suffer a heart attack because one dude lucked his way into a comprehensive health plan at one employer doesn't fly.

    And before you get all hyper-defensive about someone "mocking" your health, brettmcd, at least TRY to comprehend the difference between judging someone's situation or saying, "Hey man, that guy deserves affordable healthcare just like everyone else!"

    -Autistic Angel



    Wrong about everything AND making light of the medical conditions I have because I can't be as healthy as you are. You are a piece of work there AA.



    I am not making light of your medical conditions. I am presenting a sober assessment of what your medical conditions meant in the pre-ACA marketplace. Under the best of circumstances you would be classified into an extremely expensive high-risk pool where $256/mo. would have seemed like mana from heaven. At worst, you'd be denied insurance completely, allowing your medical situation to worsen until emergency care and bankruptcy foisted the cost of saving your life onto the taxpayers. That's not glib mockery, brettmcd -- that's the way the system worked for millions of people who don't have employer-based healthcare plans. Medical expenses have continued to rise faster than any other cost of living for years now, and if you think you were going to continue playing a measly $70/mo. forever if the Democrats just left well enough alone...well, that brings me to the second point:

    I *am* making light of your pugnacious ignorance. "ObamaCare" will be the reason that companies start eliminating healthcare benefits -- a trend that's been building for decades? You "can't imagine" what anyone is paying for insurance that $256/mo. is cheaper? Even if you were an agoraphobic shut-in whose only avenues for social interaction involved voice chat during public Call of Duty matches and petting your cat, the mere existence of the internet would have exposed you to enough facts to know better.

    -Autistic Angel
  • Rip
    Rip
    GT Member
    on 1380832634:

    on 1380783794:

    As for why I think its good to work for and get insurance as part of my benefits from a job rather then have other taxpayers pay for it shouldn't be something that a rational person needs explained to them.


    Have you thought about how much more competitive American business would be if it didn't have to subsidize health insurance?


    No because they would just have to pay more. It isn't as if they are just doing it for no reason, it is part of a compensation package.
  • Gratch
    Gratch
    GT Member
    One of my Tea Party friends posted this morning on FB that the ACA will cost her family $14,400 more per year than what they are currently paying. Bookended with a "Thanks Obama", of course.

    I'm sorely tempted to throw the bullshit flag...
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    Ask for proof. I doubt you'll get it, but it will be interesting to read the litany of excuses they throw out.
Sign In or Register to comment.