FULL PRICE is 31% higher (BUT... BETTER benefits. So the increase makes a LOT of sense.)
AFTER the subsidy to which I am eligible: 60% less.
Snails - Response on Threads
- Thread starter classwife
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
FULL PRICE is 31% higher (BUT... BETTER benefits. So the increase makes a LOT of sense.)
AFTER the subsidy to which I am eligible: 60% less.
And THAT is the goal/point. Although the 31% is sad, some of that was supposed to be offset by other taxes and such. The site sucked. But I'll bet they are looking for duplicates and fixing the site. So...I'd chill for about 2 or 3 weeks then go nuts if not fixed.
i don't mean to rain on your parade and since that's the way the law is written you ARE entitled but ............ premiums have increased and the major portion of it is covered by taxpayers' money ..................
It was five (5) weeks two days ago.
I have called multiple times PER WEEK since then.
Each time:
... "I'll put in a trouble ticket" ... or
... "someone will call you back in 48 hours"
Currently:
... still have 8 pending policies
... NOBODY has EVER "called me back", much less in 48 hours
... NO communication with insurance provider FROM the website
The "going nuts" part happened yesterday.
I await callback from the "director" mentioned a few posts ago.
I await callback (phone tag) with my provider rep so she can initiate conference call with the state.
Those calls will happen when my hands are deep in the meatloaf mix.
Why is my meatloaf mix freezing up???
...and the case of BETTER BENEFITS is the exception, Tibs. The vast majority are getting crappier benefits for higher cost. It *is* the truth.
lol, atty, i strongly disagree! bear, cover your ears because it's not personal - i'm just using you to make a point
the above-mentioned policy holder is not under financial strain. as a matter of fact he was pleased with his old policy and had no problems paying for it ................
now his policy will be mostly paid for by the federal government
when i look at cases like that i firmly support virginia's decision to NOT expand medicaid. how anybody in their right mind could have done away with the asset tests is beyond my comprehension.
Last edited:
and then we have those who need help desperately and still are left out in the cold ........... sigh
everybody should be covered with basic benefits - and those who can afford to should be able to buy additional protection in the private [insurance] sector
everybody should be covered with basic benefits - and those who can afford to should be able to buy additional protection in the private [insurance] sector
You have a sub-point Tibs. And I've said before that they should just have had a "below this income...govt pays 100%" and shifted the $$$ out of medicaid and/or had a medicaid-only option so people didn't have to go on welfare to meet the legal requirements. They should optionally, for example, be allowed to take the lowest income subsidized option of ACA even if their income was below some stupid minimum.
Besides the whole thing was originally proposed as medicare for everyone and a single-payer system like in Canada where the hospitals/doctors contract back for reimbursement....low overhead and single payer without socialized med (like in the UK...govt owns the hospitals...socialized med there). Couldn't get it past the Republican'ts.
OTOH, I'm not sure your argument of "Bear should have to sell everything he owns so he can afford govt mandated healthcare" is valid either. It's a catch-22 due to the mandate. It's the bump-into-medicaid that's the problem.
Besides the whole thing was originally proposed as medicare for everyone and a single-payer system like in Canada where the hospitals/doctors contract back for reimbursement....low overhead and single payer without socialized med (like in the UK...govt owns the hospitals...socialized med there). Couldn't get it past the Republican'ts.
OTOH, I'm not sure your argument of "Bear should have to sell everything he owns so he can afford govt mandated healthcare" is valid either. It's a catch-22 due to the mandate. It's the bump-into-medicaid that's the problem.
Tibs... to clarify:
NY never HAD an asset test for people under 65 years of age. (If by "assets" you mean money socked away.) The qualifier for anybody under 65 has always been adjusted gross income. If I did not have unemployment coming in during 2013, I could have qualified THIS year (even with the severance and pension annuities... they were CRAP pittances). All it takes is creativity to get your AGI below the maximum. Completely legal.
And NY made it even EASIER for 2014.
I have tossed the thought of Medicaid aside because one (of two) major providers here in Monroe county has kicked all adult medicaid recipients to the curb. Their chillen still qualify under that provider. I am not comfortable with the prospect of having to change doctors should MY provider follow suit.
but don't expect them to delete your 7 superfluous policies till some more people sign up - if they do it now it might decrease participation numbers by a couple percentage points
lol............
''OTOH, I'm not sure your argument of "Bear should have to sell everything he owns so he can afford govt mandated healthcare" is valid either. It's a catch-22 due to the mandate. It's the bump-into-medicaid that's the problem.''
may i ask where i made a statement like this?
may i ask where i made a statement like this?
''adjusted gross income'' should be a sufficient test ......................
but my main point was - you were happy with your old policy and it was not a hardship to pay the premium. you are now getting a windfall, albeit without asking for it
, and it's gonna be a substantial amount of tax money when you consider you are far from the only one in this situation.
''OTOH, I'm not sure your argument of "Bear should have to sell everything he owns so he can afford govt mandated healthcare" is valid either. It's a catch-22 due to the mandate. It's the bump-into-medicaid that's the problem.''
may i ask where i made a statement like this?
You didn't, I didn't mean it quite that literally. But, elimination of the asset test came about because of ^^^^. Otherwise, IF NY had an asset test, and IF Bear had to go on medicaid because he didn't qualify for the higher-income plans...he'd have to sell everything. So, basically, eliminating the asset test isn't as stupid as you made it out to be.
lol, atty, i strongly disagree! bear, cover your ears because it's not personal - i'm just using you to make a point
the above-mentioned policy holder is not under financial strain. as a matter of fact he was pleased with his old policy and had no problems paying for it ................
now his policy will be mostly paid for by the federal government
when i look at cases like that i firmly support virginia's decision to NOT expand medicaid. how anybody in their right mind could have done away with the asset tests is beyond my comprehension.
Last edited:
but what would bear do with the proceeds from selling off his investments?
bear, give us some numbers from your personal experience. well, just one - what does the subsidy amount to in your case? and just for curiosity - did you see anything that would allow you to opt out of accepting that subsidy?
Last edited:
Then there's this:
Where you say that an asset test is not required. And you obviously believe that people should get something for their tax dollars. Yes? But when Bear gets something back...now that he's retired...you don't like it? 
''adjusted gross income'' should be a sufficient test ......................
but my main point was - you were happy with your old policy and it was not a hardship to pay the premium. you are now getting a windfall, albeit without asking for it
Where you say that an asset test is not required. And you obviously believe that people should get something for their tax dollars. Yes?
But when Bear gets something back...now that he's retired...you don't like it?
but what would bear do with the proceeds from selling off his investments?
bear, give us some numbers from your personal experience. well, just one - what does the subsidy amount to in your case? and just for curiosity - did you see anything that would allow you to opt out of accepting that subsidy?
He would go to the casino like all the other retirees!
lol, atty! i don't blame bear for taking advantage of this mess! i'd do the same in a heartbeat! but help is being extended where it was not necessary and refused where desperately needed.
under this law you can have millions stashed away in a 401k and qualify! as bear has pointed out numerous times if you manage your finances properly you can achieve security!
under this law you can have millions stashed away in a 401k and qualify! as bear has pointed out numerous times if you manage your finances properly you can achieve security!
He would go to the casino like all the other retirees!
gotta keep bear away from there at all costs - that's where he buys his cigs!
gotta keep bear away from there at all costs - that's where he buys his cigs!
No no no... "casino west" is en route to the reservation. The only casinos within 60 miles are STATE-run fleece joints. (Payback % is much lower than NA casinos.)
- Status
