Affordable Healthcare Act Premium Calculator Tells Your Mandatory Monthly Premium

[LoneLaugher]

As you haven't provided any evidence that your "average family" would pay more than the $11,547 unsubsidized premium in your example. So your point is absolutely as worthless. If the goal was simply to subsidize premiums, the rest of this 2,000 page bill is also pointless; that could have been accomplished in a 2 page subsidy bill.

Man...you really want to be against this law, don't you.

Before this law was passed....that family....two mid-50's adults with a smoker and a 24 y/o......could not even have gotten a fucking policy.

The 24 y/o would be too old to be on the policy.


Lets forget that...and pretend that the 24 y/o was eligible. There are no plans outside of the proposed exchanges that this family could purchase for less than 12k per year which would provide anything more than basic catastrophic coverage

The ACA Silver plan is a decent, middle of the road plan with a host of benefits that were not included in any comparatively priced individual plan. Period.

Count your blessings. You have good employer. Stop looking for things to dislike.

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days). So one who had maintained their coverage throughout (as any responsible person should) would not have had any problem with getting or keeping a policy. As for the cost, that is still unknown for your example as for mine, since you still have not provided a shred of evidence as to the cost of an individual policy under prior law to compare to your "average family". Moreover, the 24 year old that is currently eligible is not free; the plan with only spousal coverage is only $10,000. The law only requires that they be allowed to stay on the policy, not that they be included. And no, I don't necessarily want to be "against the law"; the discussion is whether the law is providing more affordable insurance, before subsidies. You have not succeeded in proving that it does, and I have serious doubts that it will. As you seem to be getting increasingly aggressive, I'll leave it at that.

Of course you will. You have no choice.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, it does not.

not everybody is subsidized, because not everybody is lazy sucker like yourself

and address you advice to yourself as well - you did not even know there was a calculator until I served it to you on a plate, "winner"

Of course I did. You are unable to comprehend English. I have probably linked to that calculator in previous posts here. You idiot.

Now...the lazy sucker comment.....

Would you like to tell me what you think I do for a living and what my financial situation is? Have you any idea?

No, you did not, otherwise you won't demand details and explanations - calculator is pretty explanatory by itself.

I could not care less what do you do for a living. It was YOU who posted the figure of 52K per year for two adults aged 40 and two kids.
you also insisted on the subsidies for insurance premiums.
There is always a reason someone posts some specific figures - and it is usually their own.
So if you consider 52K pr year to make a huge impression on me - you are mistaken

and if you want to do a damage control and pretend that you make eight figures - it won't help - because then you won't be putting those subsidies as if they will cover everybody.

But they are dear FOR YOU.
Understandable, as is also understandable why are you defending this crap altogether.
Personal reasons are always the most important

Still does not make this shit a.k.a obamacare anything better than fucking crap.

What is the average income for an American family?

 

[Antares]

Pssst, the Exchanges are not open yet.

But many are publishing their rates, which are lower.

Not to mention that since those analyses came out at the beginning of September, more states have released rates that are lower than those in the states examined. It's been quite a month. A few recent stories:

Minnesota claims lowest ObamaCare rates in US


Data: Iowa insurance Exchange Will Offer Low Premiums


Ark. Insurance Dept. announces premium rates for Health Insurance Marketplace

"Over the last few months, the Arkansas Insurance Department carefully evaluated the reasonableness of the premium rates submitted for plans to be sold on the Health Insurance Marketplace," said actuary David Dillon. He said the resultant change in premiums is generally lower than what was expected by independent forecasters.

"The average approved rate in the individual market is approximately 10% below what was projected by the Society of Actuaries," stated Dillon. Dillon stated this comparison includes adjustments to account for the fact that the State of Arkansas was the only state that created a "Private Option" for those Arkansans newly eligible for Medicaid.

Analysis: Obamacare exchanges will push Anthem's premiums lower

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana expects the premiums it charges on the health insurance exchanges being created by Obamacare to be slightly less than they would have been without the law.

That’s the conclusion of an analysis of Anthem’s rate filing with the Indiana Department of Insurance by Indianapolis-based consulting firm HealthCare Options Inc.

Poor Greenie, you know full well that JUST as many states have publshed MUCH higher rates...

Now as to the "Lower" rates....here is the link to the article....Anthem says the rates will be higher...and the people OUTSIDE of Anthem says they will be lower....hmmmmm

Analysis: Obamacare exchanges will push Anthem's premiums lower | 2013-09-09 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

The gof the article is that two disparate groups are arguing about what is right, and that YOU have taken the side of those who say the rates will be lower...go figure.

 

[BillyV]

Man...you really want to be against this law, don't you.

Before this law was passed....that family....two mid-50's adults with a smoker and a 24 y/o......could not even have gotten a fucking policy.

The 24 y/o would be too old to be on the policy.


Lets forget that...and pretend that the 24 y/o was eligible. There are no plans outside of the proposed exchanges that this family could purchase for less than 12k per year which would provide anything more than basic catastrophic coverage

The ACA Silver plan is a decent, middle of the road plan with a host of benefits that were not included in any comparatively priced individual plan. Period.

Count your blessings. You have good employer. Stop looking for things to dislike.

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days). So one who had maintained their coverage throughout (as any responsible person should) would not have had any problem with getting or keeping a policy. As for the cost, that is still unknown for your example as for mine, since you still have not provided a shred of evidence as to the cost of an individual policy under prior law to compare to your "average family". Moreover, the 24 year old that is currently eligible is not free; the plan with only spousal coverage is only $10,000. The law only requires that they be allowed to stay on the policy, not that they be included. And no, I don't necessarily want to be "against the law"; the discussion is whether the law is providing more affordable insurance, before subsidies. You have not succeeded in proving that it does, and I have serious doubts that it will. As you seem to be getting increasingly aggressive, I'll leave it at that.

Of course you will. You have no choice.

Interesting...you have proved nothing, refuted nothing, yet declared victory and run for the doors. Good job!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days). So one who had maintained their coverage throughout (as any responsible person should) would not have had any problem with getting or keeping a policy. As for the cost, that is still unknown for your example as for mine, since you still have not provided a shred of evidence as to the cost of an individual policy under prior law to compare to your "average family". Moreover, the 24 year old that is currently eligible is not free; the plan with only spousal coverage is only $10,000. The law only requires that they be allowed to stay on the policy, not that they be included. And no, I don't necessarily want to be "against the law"; the discussion is whether the law is providing more affordable insurance, before subsidies. You have not succeeded in proving that it does, and I have serious doubts that it will. As you seem to be getting increasingly aggressive, I'll leave it at that.

Of course you will. You have no choice.

Interesting...you have proved nothing, refuted nothing, yet declared victory and run for the doors. Good job!

No...I did not declare victory. But I think you did.

I'm still here, by the way.

HIPAA? Helps uninsured people how?

Try harder.

 

[JakeStarkey]

vox, you are making an assertion the which you have no way of estimating, guesstimating, or gestating its delivery date.

Step off, faker.

fakey, you idiot - the OP posted the CALCULATOR. learn to read, imbecile

You are stupid is the only answer. The calculator is an inaccurate determiner of what is really going to happen and what matters are really going to cost.

Do you think, in another poster's thought, you are the only person to see the calculator?

 

[Antares]

As you haven't provided any evidence that your "average family" would pay more than the $11,547 unsubsidized premium in your example. So your point is absolutely as worthless. If the goal was simply to subsidize premiums, the rest of this 2,000 page bill is also pointless; that could have been accomplished in a 2 page subsidy bill.

Man...you really want to be against this law, don't you.

Before this law was passed....that family....two mid-50's adults with a smoker and a 24 y/o......could not even have gotten a fucking policy.

The 24 y/o would be too old to be on the policy.


Lets forget that...and pretend that the 24 y/o was eligible. There are no plans outside of the proposed exchanges that this family could purchase for less than 12k per year which would provide anything more than basic catastrophic coverage

The ACA Silver plan is a decent, middle of the road plan with a host of benefits that were not included in any comparatively priced individual plan. Period.

Count your blessings. You have good employer. Stop looking for things to dislike.

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days). So one who had maintained their coverage throughout (as any responsible person should) would not have had any problem with getting or keeping a policy. As for the cost, that is still unknown for your example as for mine, since you still have not provided a shred of evidence as to the cost of an individual policy under prior law to compare to your "average family". Moreover, the 24 year old that is currently eligible is not free; the plan with only spousal coverage is only $10,000. The law only requires that they be allowed to stay on the policy, not that they be included. And no, I don't necessarily want to be "against the law"; the discussion is whether the law is providing more affordable insurance, before subsidies. You have not succeeded in proving that it does, and I have serious doubts that it will. As you seem to be getting increasingly aggressive, I'll leave it at that.

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days).

Only partially true.

It is true of Group coverage to Group coverage...

It is NOT true of Group to Individual.

 

[BillyV]

Man...you really want to be against this law, don't you.

Before this law was passed....that family....two mid-50's adults with a smoker and a 24 y/o......could not even have gotten a fucking policy.

The 24 y/o would be too old to be on the policy.


Lets forget that...and pretend that the 24 y/o was eligible. There are no plans outside of the proposed exchanges that this family could purchase for less than 12k per year which would provide anything more than basic catastrophic coverage

The ACA Silver plan is a decent, middle of the road plan with a host of benefits that were not included in any comparatively priced individual plan. Period.

Count your blessings. You have good employer. Stop looking for things to dislike.

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days). So one who had maintained their coverage throughout (as any responsible person should) would not have had any problem with getting or keeping a policy. As for the cost, that is still unknown for your example as for mine, since you still have not provided a shred of evidence as to the cost of an individual policy under prior law to compare to your "average family". Moreover, the 24 year old that is currently eligible is not free; the plan with only spousal coverage is only $10,000. The law only requires that they be allowed to stay on the policy, not that they be included. And no, I don't necessarily want to be "against the law"; the discussion is whether the law is providing more affordable insurance, before subsidies. You have not succeeded in proving that it does, and I have serious doubts that it will. As you seem to be getting increasingly aggressive, I'll leave it at that.

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days).

Only partially true.

It is true of Group coverage to Group coverage...

It is NOT true of Group to Individual.

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.

If you develop a medical problem while on Cobra coverage that could be considered a pre-existing condition, you are generally protected under another federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Known as Hipaa, it guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage, according to Gloria Della, a spokeswoman for the Labor Department in Washington. Note: There are specified time periods in which you have to enroll to be covered by these protections.
After Cobra's Life Ends, Hipaa Can Help - WSJ.com

The point is, there was already a way for responsible employees to ensure continuation of their coverage indefinitely despite having pre-existing conditions; they just had to follow the rules. This was to avoid what will probably happen under the ACA, where people will pay the penalties and wait until they get sick to buy the more expensive coverage, since there are no longer any exclusions. I don't know if that is really fixing the problem, just enabling those who will want to game the system. I'm not an ACA expert (nor a HIPAA expert), so there may be some safeguards in place of which I am unaware.

 

[Politico]

I love how everyone keeps debating who could and couldn't be covered as if that is the issue lol.

 

[Antares]

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days). So one who had maintained their coverage throughout (as any responsible person should) would not have had any problem with getting or keeping a policy. As for the cost, that is still unknown for your example as for mine, since you still have not provided a shred of evidence as to the cost of an individual policy under prior law to compare to your "average family". Moreover, the 24 year old that is currently eligible is not free; the plan with only spousal coverage is only $10,000. The law only requires that they be allowed to stay on the policy, not that they be included. And no, I don't necessarily want to be "against the law"; the discussion is whether the law is providing more affordable insurance, before subsidies. You have not succeeded in proving that it does, and I have serious doubts that it will. As you seem to be getting increasingly aggressive, I'll leave it at that.

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days).

Only partially true.

It is true of Group coverage to Group coverage...

It is NOT true of Group to Individual.

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.

If you develop a medical problem while on Cobra coverage that could be considered a pre-existing condition, you are generally protected under another federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Known as Hipaa, it guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage, according to Gloria Della, a spokeswoman for the Labor Department in Washington. Note: There are specified time periods in which you have to enroll to be covered by these protections.
After Cobra's Life Ends, Hipaa Can Help - WSJ.com

The point is, there was already a way for responsible employees to ensure continuation of their coverage indefinitely despite having pre-existing conditions; they just had to follow the rules. This was to avoid what will probably happen under the ACA, where people will pay the penalties and wait until they get sick to buy the more expensive coverage, since there are no longer any exclusions. I don't know if that is really fixing the problem, just enabling those who will want to game the system. I'm not an ACA expert (nor a HIPAA expert), so there may be some safeguards in place of which I am unaware.

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.

Thats simply not true.

It will be Jan 1, but it has never been true before.
Sorry, I do this every day.

 

[BillyV]

Before this law was passed, you could not be denied coverage under HIPAA if you had at least 18 months of creditable coverage without a significant break (more than 63 days).

Only partially true.

It is true of Group coverage to Group coverage...

It is NOT true of Group to Individual.

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.

If you develop a medical problem while on Cobra coverage that could be considered a pre-existing condition, you are generally protected under another federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Known as Hipaa, it guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage, according to Gloria Della, a spokeswoman for the Labor Department in Washington. Note: There are specified time periods in which you have to enroll to be covered by these protections.
After Cobra's Life Ends, Hipaa Can Help - WSJ.com

The point is, there was already a way for responsible employees to ensure continuation of their coverage indefinitely despite having pre-existing conditions; they just had to follow the rules. This was to avoid what will probably happen under the ACA, where people will pay the penalties and wait until they get sick to buy the more expensive coverage, since there are no longer any exclusions. I don't know if that is really fixing the problem, just enabling those who will want to game the system. I'm not an ACA expert (nor a HIPAA expert), so there may be some safeguards in place of which I am unaware.

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.

Thats simply not true.

It will be Jan 1, but it has never been true before.
Sorry, I do this every day.

Well, I won't question your experience, but if what you are saying is true, how do you explain an authoritative source like the Wall Street Journal saying just the opposite, even quoting a Department of Labor spokesperson?

 

[Antares]

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.


The point is, there was already a way for responsible employees to ensure continuation of their coverage indefinitely despite having pre-existing conditions; they just had to follow the rules. This was to avoid what will probably happen under the ACA, where people will pay the penalties and wait until they get sick to buy the more expensive coverage, since there are no longer any exclusions. I don't know if that is really fixing the problem, just enabling those who will want to game the system. I'm not an ACA expert (nor a HIPAA expert), so there may be some safeguards in place of which I am unaware.

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.

Thats simply not true.

It will be Jan 1, but it has never been true before.
Sorry, I do this every day.

Well, I won't question your experience, but if what you are saying is true, how do you explain an authoritative source like the Wall Street Journal saying just the opposite, even quoting a Department of Labor spokesperson?

If you come off a Group Plan today and you have had Cancer you will NOT get an individual policy.

Jan 1 that changes.

HIPPA ONLY secures group to group....and PHI (personal health info safety).

 

[Antares]

Look, just this week I have dealt with people that the ACA hurts, and people that the ACA helps.

 

[BillyV]

Well, it's true that it deals with Group to Group coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions; however, if you go from group insurance to a COBRA continuation policy, when that expires, HIPAA "guarantees access to individual coverage for people who have used up their Cobra coverage". You have 63 days from when COBRA expires to obtain the new individual coverage.

Thats simply not true.

It will be Jan 1, but it has never been true before.
Sorry, I do this every day.

Well, I won't question your experience, but if what you are saying is true, how do you explain an authoritative source like the Wall Street Journal saying just the opposite, even quoting a Department of Labor spokesperson?

If you come off a Group Plan today and you have had Cancer you will NOT get an individual policy.

Jan 1 that changes.

HIPPA ONLY secures group to group....and PHI (personal health info safety).

I'm sorry, but simply restating again what you said before is not an explanation. Either the Wall Street Journal is wrong or there are some provisions of HIPAA you are unaware of. If you have no further evidence I have to go with the WSJ.

 

[Antares]

Well, I won't question your experience, but if what you are saying is true, how do you explain an authoritative source like the Wall Street Journal saying just the opposite, even quoting a Department of Labor spokesperson?

If you come off a Group Plan today and you have had Cancer you will NOT get an individual policy.

Jan 1 that changes.

HIPPA ONLY secures group to group....and PHI (personal health info safety).

I'm sorry, but simply restating again what you said before is not an explanation. Either the Wall Street Journal is wrong or there are some provisions of HIPAA you are unaware of. If you have no further evidence I have to go with the WSJ.

I don't what you believe and what you don't.

You are quite free to be wrong.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm an overweight smoking diabetic
My wife a disabled (with no benefits) diabetic, Parkinson's, COPD, etc....

I hate to think what the "etc" could be but the good news is, if you don't get this other job, if you should find yourself out in the cold with no health insurance, lucky for you that ObamaCare will make it possible for you to get the same coverage for the "group" premium price.

 

[daveman]

vox, you are making an assertion the which you have no way of estimating, guesstimating, or gestating its delivery date.

Step off, faker.

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight, the part of Chris Crocker will be played by Jake Starkey.

 

[daveman]

I'm insured through Tricare. I currently pay about $540/year for my family of 4...about 1/7th of what Obamacare would cost me, if I got the subsidy.

 

[Pheonixops]

I'm insured through Tricare. I currently pay about $540/year for my family of 4...about 1/7th of what Obamacare would cost me, if I got the subsidy.

I'm insured through a municipality (Anthem is the insurer) and I feel for the people who are affected adversely by this MANDATORY monstrosity.

 

[Pheonixops]

Tens of millions of people's jaws are going to hit the ground when they find out what their monthly mandatory premium will be if they don't have insurance through their employers. I was curious and entered my numbers in the ACA calculator and was flabbergasted at what I would have to pay. I have a feeling that bankruptcy attorneys are going to get rich.


Find out what you will have to pay here:
Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

OK, Birther, I'll bite.

How much did it say you will have to pay? You were flabbergasted, huh?

Details, please.

$1,332/month or $15,985 per year for just my wife and myself

That's crazy, especially because it's mandatory. Smokers really potentially take a big hit.