What will right-wingers with no health insurance do now?

I'm calling you whatever it is you would call somebody who we assume is not lying and goes to the website that could give them the correct information and somehow manages to get the wrong information.

 

Ah.....another Obamacare sufferer.

Yes, I found that the Obamacare networks are a big problem, and you run into a problem where you can finally find a doctor in network, but then the hospital where he practices isn't in network! I for example have a relatively rare eye condition, one that needs surgery at times, and the only in-network specialist does his surgery at a hospital not in-network. So I have a choice if my eye condition degenerates again and needs surgery: 1) go to the in-network specialist but have to pay the exorbitant hospital bill or 2) go to the in-network hospital and pay the specialist's bill. I have determined that option #2 is cheaper, so I will go that route if I have to. But that also shows how bad Obamacare made things: before Obamacare I had a wide choice of specialists, and all hospitals in my region were covered under insurance.

People who haven't experienced just how messed up Obamacare made things really shouldn't be mocking those of us who have.

 

The problem with that is that I would not be covered in the event of a real health catastrophe. But you're right that it would be cheaper, under ordinary medical circumstances, to save the almost $12,000 in premiums and just pay-as-I-go. I just did my taxes and found I had $2200 in medical expenses this year - which Obamacare did not pay a cent toward because of the high deductible. Had I KNOWN that all I would have incurred was $2K, of course I could have opted out - and I would have been $10K ahead. But where would that leave me if I ended up with a truly unaffordable health expense? So the wise thing to do is buy insurance.

 

That makes no sense. Going in-network is always lower cost.

 

No one ever knows how much they will ever incur in medical expenses hence why most people play it safe and pay for health insurance in case something catastrophic does happen of if someone suddenly incurs some type of chronic condition.

 

Yes, IF that's an option. (Clearly, you don't realize how restrictive Obamacare made things.) In the case I gave, there is only ONE in-network doctor in my specialty, and the hospital he does surgeries at is not in-network. So my choice is to either stay in-network for the specialist but go out-of-network for the hospital OR stay in-network for the hospital but go out-of-network for the specialist. Pre-Obamacare, there were several doctors in my specialty in-network, and all the hospitals within my region were also in-network. Many Obamacare victims no longer have that luxury.

 

That seems to be more a function of where you live and not Obamacare. Where I live I have ENDLESS options for in-network doctors and hospitals. There is NOTHING in the ACA law that put limits on in-network doctors or hospitals.

 

Absolutely. But the problem with Obamacare, for moderate earners, is that they are being charged an arm-and-a-leg for insurance that basically only covers catastrophes. The simple matter is that it is ridiculous that "bare-bones" bronze plans are going for close to $1000 a month (depending on age). And Obama had the chutzpah to call it the AFFORDABLE (!) Care Act? It is affordable only to those who get subsidizes, which are individuals earning under $50,000 a year. It should have been called the ASPCA - the Affordable for Some People Car Act.

 

Same thing was happening prior to Obamacare. Health insurance cost were already getting out of control long before Obamacare.

 

True that there is nothing in the ACA law that puts limits on in-network doctors or hospitals, but neither does it require any decent in-network coverage to exist at all - a loophole in the ACA that allowed for insurers to have "skinny" networks. Are you aware that many insurance plans are missing key specialists entirely? If you belong to one of those plans, and develop a need for that specialty, you will be forced to go out-of-network and pay the full bill (even though you are paying for insurance). Obama should have had a requirement that insurance customers are required to go in-network IF an in-network doctor exists; otherwise, the insurer has to pick up the out-of-network doctor. But no such requirement exists.

 

It also helps people know when to quarantine and who needs to stay home.

 

Yes, and that was a KEY failing of Obamacare: he refused to address the key problem with insurance and medical care: the astronomical costs of the medical care itself. All he did was shift the financial burden around (which is pretty much how liberals tend to "solve" problems: let someone else pay for it).

 

You're almost there but remember what I said, for every opening [ QUOTE ] there has to be a closing [ /QUOTE ] I think the only thing you needed to do was to close the first tag. The one that the system enters automatically. This is the one at the very top of the message and it says something like [ QUOTE="Golem... ] You leave whatever part you want to reference and when you're ready to comment close it with [ /QUOTE ] and write your comment. Then open another section with [ QUOTE ]... and so on...

You counter hard numbers with anecdotal evidence. You can take any arbitrary 20 years and say that the rates were better than after that period. That's meaningless. I showed you real evidence. With references. Between 2002 and 2008, premium costs increased 58%. Between 2010 (when the ACA was implemented) and 2017 it was 33%. And they have continued to come down until, as I showed on my previous post, they are now actually starting to come down.
https://www.policygenius.com/blog/heres-how-much-your-premiums-will-increase-without-obamacare/

These are real numbers with real references. If you have something to counter them with, show it. But show real verifiable facts. Not anecdotes.

 

I respectfully disagree. By the time someone has been tested and confirmed, the chances are they are past the infectious period. This isn't an instant test, my girlfriend is the Geriatric Consultant at a major London hospital. Results are taking 48 hours to come back. It's better to not test and to self isolate if you have any contact with someone who is a risk or have symptoms.

 

Wow! I wouldn't have walked out of there. I would have ran out of there. Obvious scammers!

Anyway, that is just another anecdote. Am I to assume that you are going to use only anecdotes and no hard facts? That would not be a valid basis for a serious discussion.

 

They can infect more people if they have been tested positive. This is why we dont base policy on anecdotes.

 

I don't understand your post. Would you or would you not pay $400 or $500 for your own test in the scenario given on the OP?

 

I don't see where your response applies to what I posted. There was nothing anecdotal in my post.

 

The network has ALWAYS been a function of a private insurer working with docs and hospitals to give its members a goo network. Your issue is not with Obamacare but with the PRIVATE insurance companies and docs and hospitals in you state.

 

You posted a personal story, that is an anecdote.

 

And how would you propose Obamacare lower the costs of medical care? And is there a reason the current administration has done such?

 

Basic premise flaw here. You're only a freeloader if you expect someone to pay for something you want. If someone else wants me to get tested for anything, then it is on them. If I want to get tested then it's on me.

 

No, me neither.

 

Please quote where I posted a personal story. I asked a question. There is a difference.

 

Yes, well....in a way it was a scam, but one that Obama allowed as part of Obamacare. He permitted a "gag" clause that had the effect of forcing people to use insurance when it would have been cheaper to just pay cash. But it does tell you, doesn't it, how Obama allowed the insurance companies to make out like bandits with his scheme? (They must have been deep into his pockets.) Think abut it: The only reason an insurance company would REQUIRE a customer to make a claim, rather than bypass them and pay cash, is if the insurance company had worked out a deal with the provider allowing for kick-backs.

You do not seem to appreciate my personal experiences, although I use them to show you what is happening to not only me, but to millions of others. Hence, I will provide this article that shows how people save money (in some instances) by paying cash instead of the "discount" insurance price.
1) https://consumerist.com/2012/05/29/sometimes-its-cheaper-to-pay-cash-than-use-your-insurance/
2) https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/h...ills/277-3075953b-6e78-4587-8f0c-ef0da35554b2