LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS, I was thrilled to hear a couple of years ago that something was being done to try and help low-income people and families afford health care insurance. When “Obamacare” — the nickname for the Affordable Care Act — finally went live on Oct. 1, I was eager to see if my family could save money while still getting quality health care.
But before I go into the details of my recent experience signing up for “Obamacare,” you have to understand my family’s health care circumstance. My employer doesn’t offer a health care plan, so several years ago I bought my own private health insurance plan through Kaiser Permanente, which has the closest hospital to my home and was my health insurance provider when I was a kid. My upcoming 2014 monthly premium would have been $430 per month — a big chunk of change on a journalist’s meager salary. And that’s not including deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket health care costs.
Because my health insurance is so expensive, we couldn’t afford to get health insurance for my wife. Like me, my wife’s employer doesn’t offer a health care plan, so my wife hasn’t had health coverage of any kind for the past seven years.
Because of our household income, we qualified for financial assistance through the Affordable Care Act. You don’t have to be poor to qualify for assistance. A family of three can have a household income of $78,120 per year and still qualify for assistance. For a family of four, it’s $94,200.
But to get the assistance, you have to switch to an ACA-compliant policy. As it turns out, there were several Kaiser policies offered by CoveredCA. I called my Kaiser representative to determine which ACA policy was closest to the current insurance policy I already had. I wanted something similar to what I had, and sure enough, there was a new ACA policy that fit the bill.
Now that I was ready to choose a new Kaiser insurance policy, it was time to apply — which was the biggest hassle in the entire process. The CoveredCA website wasn’t working. Not only could I not compare plans, I couldn’t even sign up, even though I already knew what plan I wanted.
Fortunately, there’s a CoveredCA phone number you can call (800-300-1506), so I tried giving them a call.
After about five minutes of waiting on hold, I was transferred to a CoveredCA agent who was more than willing to help me apply over the phone. I had already printed out a PDF of the application and filled it out at home, so the process over the phone was relatively simple.
The representative peppered me with several questions I had anticipated. How many people live in my household? What is my estimated household income for this year? Who is signing up for health care?
After about 15 minutes of providing very basic information, it was time to pick a plan. The plan my wife and I wanted — Kaiser 73 HMO — is what’s known as a “Silver” plan under the ACA. This plan was eerily similar to the plan I already had. In fact, it was better! Every benefit of the new plan either COST THE SAME as my current plan, or was LESS EXPENSIVE! Want some examples?
• My annual deductible before Obamacare was $2,000 per year. Under the new plan, it’s $1,500.
• My annual out-of-pocket maximum before Obamacare was $6,500. Under the new plan, it’s $5,200.
• A routine physical exam before Obamacare would have cost me $50. Now it’s free.
• A mammogram before Obamacare was $65. Now it’s free.
• A primary care office visit before Obamacare was $45. Now it’s $40.
• X-rays used to cost me $65. Now they’re $50.
• Brand-name prescription drugs are 40 percent cheaper than before.
There are plenty more examples, but you get the general idea.
Now here’s the real kicker. Before Obamacare, I was paying a $430 monthly premium for my own private plan and my wife had no health care coverage at all. After signing up through CoveredCA, my wife and I now BOTH have insurance through Kaiser Permanente, with the same plan and the same benefits. The total monthly premium for both of us? A grand total of $265.
That’s right. Under the new plan — with the same or better benefits as my old plan — I’m covering an extra person (my wife) and SAVING $165 per month. When I heard the news, my wife and I celebrated by going out for a nice dinner.
There has been a lot of opposition to Obamacare, with some very real concerns. Let me address some of them as they related to my experience.
You have to change insurance policies. This is true if you want to get financial assistance for health care, but it’s optional. I could have kept my old Kaiser insurance plan. But why would I do that? My new Kaiser plan has better benefits AND is two-thirds less expensive. If I had added my wife to my old plan, our monthly premium would have been $756 per month. Now it’s $265. Change was a good thing.
You have to give the government your tax information. This is true, but again, it’s completely optional. Your eligibility for financial assistance is determined by your household income. Had I chosen not to share my tax information, I would have had to re-apply for ACA insurance every year. But because I opted to let the government look at my tax forms each year, I don’t have to re-file again for another five years. Sharing my tax information was a small price to pay for affordable health care with no worries for five years.
Employers are dropping insurance coverage. This is true, but again, it needs to be put into context. Employers are saving money through ACA as well. If an employer was paying $400 a month for an employee’s health care, and it’s determined that the employee could get the same coverage through the insurance exchange for a much cheaper rate, the employer usually makes the following sound business decision — “Get your own subsidized health care policy and we’ll pay you back to cover the costs.” This “change” can save employers thousands of dollars per year per employee, which makes business sense, and the employee is still getting the same — if not better — coverage.
The goal of “Obamacare” was to provide affordable health insurance for low-income families. My family is now (healthy) living proof of how it can be successful. Yes, signing up for affordable coverage can be a hassle, but for my family, it was well worth it.
Steve Guertin is The Herald’s sports editor.
Sharing is caring!
When I looked up on coveredca my monthly premium was just short of $1900 per month for a family of four with a $9000 dollar a year deductible, $60 dollar doctor office copays, $75 dollar copays for meds and above that I am still responsible for 40% of the bill. And that was the bronze bottom of the barrel plan. Certainly does not fall into the category of affordable in my case. I won’t be switching. Did your policy say anything about coinsurance? I would be for making sure not. That could be the nasty little surprise awaiting you in the small print.
Thanks for sharing, it will help encourage others to apply and get affordable insurance.
There’s no co-insurance, just a yearly subsidy. They gave me the option of a lump-sum subsidy of more than $6,000 when I file my 2014 taxes. I chose to have it broken down into 12 monthly “payments.” Actually, the monthly subsidy payments are going directly to Kaiser…..and they in turn send me a monthly premium bill that is two-thirds less than what I would have paid had I kept my old plan.
I’m gonna guess the insurance premium you’re quoting above is NOT Kaiser. Maybe you should check them out. They’re a non-profit organization with lower rates than most other insurers I’ve seen. Of course, depending on where you live, your choices may be limited.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Steve for sharing your experience and showing the positive benefits of the ACA. You are the best example of what the program was supposed to do. Good luck.
Obamacare
From the above article:
“My employer doesn’t offer a health care plan,”
So our local paper doesn’t offer its employee’s a health care plan. Nice!
Key excerpts (there are many) from the article below for the community to consider…
“In reality, the US health care system is the worst of the wealthy nations. We spend the most per person, have the lowest percentage of our population covered and have poor health outcomes. Forty-five thousand adults die each year merely because they do not have insurance, and 84,000 Americans die each year of preventable illnesses that would not die in the French, Japanese or Australian health systems.”
“The Institute of Medicine issued a report in 2013, US Health in International Perspective, that documents the failure of the US health care system. In summary: “Americans live shorter lives and experience more injuries and illnesses than people in other high-income countries. The U.S. health disadvantage cannot be attributed solely to the adverse health status of racial or ethnic minorities or poor people: even highly advantaged Americans are in worse health than their counterparts in other, ‘peer’ countries.”
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19692-obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history
From the piece:A routine physical exam before Obamacare would have cost me $50. Now it’s free.
A mammogram before Obamacare was $65. Now it’s free.
Steve, interesting piece. Thank you. If I may make a clarification though:
You are now paying $265 a month, the above examples are not “free” they are “covered” in the fees that you are paying.
Yes, I’m still paying a monthly premium, but in the before time, I was paying a much higher monthly premium AND paying a $50 co-pay for seeing the doctor for a physical. Now I’m paying a lower monthly premium AND I don’t have to pay $50 to see the doctor anymore. The point of the column was pointing out how I’m getting the same – or better – coverage for two-thirds less in monthly premium costs…. with the same hospital and insurance company I had before. People and families with modest incomes – who otherwise may not be able to afford health care – should at least investigate the ACA and CoveredCA for themselves before passing judgment on its effectiveness.
Steve stated: They gave me the option of a lump-sum subsidy of more than $6,000 when I file my 2014 taxes
It is clear that you on a personal level benefited from the plan. However in this formulation the costs associated with your care were transferred from you and your family to the American taxpayers.
Even in the single payer system (which is where we will be under the next Demopublican President) the costs for services are merely transferred, they are never “free”.
DDL you are correct.
As opposed to taxpayers paying for emergency room care for routine ailments and/or more severe conditions that wouldn’t have been so severe if treated earlier. The ER care is much more expensive than when treated under an insurance plan, resulting in big savings for taxpayers.
Benician, your points, as always, make too much sense for the haters to understand. They hate the fact that the ACA is really “Medicare Advantage” for the rest of us and are so blinded by their hatred of anything Obama or the Dems do that they are going to continue to stamp, kick and scream even though repealing the ACA would make healthcare costs skyrocket (even for Medicare patients) in the next 10 years. Facts, those pesky things, don’t matter.
Karen said:make too much sense for the haters to understand. They hate the….going to continue to stamp, kick and scream
Apparently you are out of ammo and now on the attack. That really did not take too long.
You left out the part about “. . . fact that the ACA is really ‘Medicare Advantage’ for the rest of us” you know, the pertinent part of the post. Nice try.
It’s called cherry picking.
You left out the part about …
I have left out a lot of things, such as the fact that 0BamaKare is sinking faster than the Titanic did.
I felt it the polite thing to do, as I did not want to rub too much salt into the gapping wound.
Even the New Yorker see’s it. as did SNL.
Keep those fingers crossed. And no, the Affordable Care Act isn’t sinking faster than the Titanic – that went down in 2 hours and 40 minutes but keep using that silly analogy, it’s so dramatic.
I think if anything is repealed or delayed, Medicare Advantage should also be repealed or delayed at the same time and for the same duration. Fair’s fair. And SNL was hilarious last week, there is no question that there have been problems with the roll-out, but the states that set up their own exchanges, you know, under that “state’s rights” thingy you guys are so insistent on, well, they are working just fine. Massachusetts had the same problems in the beginning and in the 1st month only signed up a handful of people. They now have 99% of their residents with health insurance.
Ahhh…following the new Faux meme that if Jon Stewart or SNL pokes fun at you, you’re done. In that case, how has any Whig politician/policy ever survived?
Someone just confirmed that they are a “hater”.
Anyone who does not toe the LIB-Prog line is classified as a “Hater” .
Denise, apparently the Obama lovers struggle with basic math. If a single person pays less and that works for them, that is all that matters. It doesn’t matter to them that the fees associated are transferred to others and that the system as it is can not possibly be sustainable. But that is not of any importance. So we call it out for what it is and we get called ‘haters’ and other names. You and I know that is only because they have nothing else to work with like facts and real math.They have to be in denial now and when the truth is made perfectly clear they will be shown to be the fools that they are.
As I said before, I don’t want to subsidize Medicare Advantage any more than you want to subsidize the ACA, so if one is repealed, the other should be too. It’s funny how you guys all completely fly right past the “facts” and glom on to one word and then get all haughty and huffy because you’ve been called out yet not one of you has ever come up with a viable, reasonable, affordable alternative. Nada and please, don’t say what we have is just fine or that people can keep using the emergency room. Do you not think you are subsidizing even more people who are much sicker with the system we have now? Well, if they die, I guess not.
Karen stated: yet not one of you has ever come up with a viable, reasonable, affordable alternative.
Actually, Bob Livesay has mentioned on more than one occasion that a system, based on Kaiser should be the national model.
I have also stated that we a few simple law changes would have made our pre-0bamaKare system very manageable.
One example: Pass a stand alone law that states: “A person cannot be denied healthcare based on pre-existing conditions”.
I for one would be willing to pay a higher premium to cover that.
Fully agree JLB.
I tried to link to the New Yorker magazine cover above, but Word Press did not accept it, or I made an error.
You should take a look at it. I especially like the floppy disc.
I saw it.
I used to have a bunch of those old floppies.
JLB, you seem to wish for a world where only the wealthy can afford things like a college education or health care.
We have a social system in our country where prospective college students with low incomes can receive government grants and scholarships to help make tuition more affordable. Without these grants, only the wealthy could afford to pay college tuition costs these days, leaving gifted students from the poor and lower-middle class out of the mix. Is that the country you want?
To me, something as important as life and death (health care) seems to be an even more critical issue. The subsidies making health care more affordable for my family are no different than the subsidies millions of other families have received from the government for high education.
Yet you seem to insist upon a social system where only the wealthy can see a doctor and receive health care while the poor and lower-middle class either get bankrupted by the costs, turned away by insurance companies because of poor health, or locked out of the system for many other economic reasons. Again, is this the country you want? The wealthy entitled to all of the spoils? The poor and middle class be damned?
I don’t remember seeing that passage in the bible that reads, “To the rich go the spoils of my kingdom. The poor and middle class? Eh, they’re just a bunch of moochers and takers. To hell with them.”
Brilliantly and eloquently stated. Sadly, I think the answer to your question to ol’ JBL is he does think the spoils should all go to the top. Everyone else be damned which is why the rest of us, with a heart and compassion for everyone else, have to stick together!
Not at all Steve, that is not what I wish for and I struggle to understand how you can come to that conclusion about me. You don’t know me, you don’t know my heart, you don’t know my hopes or intentions.
Why is it so terrible to want less government, less taxation, less, representative government and a government that knows how to create and live on a budget like we are required to do in the real world?
When we run out of money, as private citizens and your credit limits are tapped out, what do you do? You can’t go borrow more and you can’t print your own, so what is your next step? It’s simple, you live within your means. The government has no desire and no intention to do that and we just keep letting them get away with it.
It’s not that I only want the wealthy to “Have” and the rest to “Have Not”. Our government is so financially out of control right now and we are in so much debt, we can not afford to take on yet another huge entitlement representing 1/6 of the economy. The math just simply doesn’t work.
Do I want people to have access to health care? Absolutely. Do I think that the healthcare system in America needs reform? Absolutely. Do I think some of the elements that need to be reformed exist or were intended in Obamacare? Absolutely. Do I think Obamacare is the answer? Absolutely not!
When this monstrosity fails, and it will, what will be the governments answer? More taxation to fill the financial shortfalls that were not met by the system. My household works from January 1 to roughly June 30th every year before we ever get to keep a dime of our own money. My CPA tells me that my taxes will be going up next year. I keep hearing Obama say that I am not yet paying enough and he wants to tax me more. Why?! So he can have me pay for other people’s services and benefits. I don’t mind paying into the system and helping out those less fortunate. But just when is there enough? There is never enough under the current model of tax and spend. There is not control over the expansion of government.
The top 1% of wage earners in America pay 37% of the taxes but earn 19% of the income. The top 10% of wage earners in America pay 71% of ALL federal income taxes but only earn 43% of the income. The bottom 50% pay 2% of the taxes but earn 13% of the income.
Redistributing wealth does not work. It is counter productive to a healthy society.
I am fascinated, if not shocked, by how emotionally invested people are in the prospect of the failure of the ACA. For many it seems simply a matter of wanting to see Obama fail. How sad and pathetic.
“My CPA tells me that my taxes will be going up next year.” Quote of the day.
http://bit.ly/id84eT
I just clicked on your link. That was pretty funny!! 🙂
When you oppose something you previously supported because Obama now supports it, yes…you are a ‘hater’. Not just of the President, but of the country, too.
Facts, of course, have a liberal bias. ACA was a Heritage Foundation plan, it was proposed for the country by Bob Dole and implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. Romney said on Meet the Press a federal plan could be modeled after Romneycare and Lindsey Graham sat beside him nodding his head. Then, when Obama proposes it (instead of a more liberal, productive plan like single payer), it becomes the worst thing in the world. So much for ‘principled’ obstruction as someone on this board has suggested (*cough*…DDL…*cough*). The Whigs agreed on the night Obama was inaugurated they would reject everything. Politics over country while we were in our worst economic state since the Great Depression. If not treason, close.
Medical services are “covered” but some have a fee/co-payment while others do not, thereby no fee, free at the time of service for preventative care. Although Kaiser has always been ahead if the curve with no cost preventive care – just got my flu shot, shingles vaccine and annual exam, no additional fee, no charge, nada so on that day, it was no cost, free, no extra charge. Your monthly premium gives you the wonderful privilege to pay a high, medium or low ransom for your care. Higher premiums, lower ransom. NO insurance and you are charged the absolutely highest rate the hospital has. It’s counter-intuitive, but that’s our healthcare system with all its screwiness.
The Age of Sanity has not yet come upon us. It may not arrive. There are plenty of people with deep psychological investment in de-facto craziness. Millennial perfection not yet transforms Obamacare into the Single Payer Health system needed by real civilizations, to match the single payer Military Empire system we have. Universal coverage, even when finally obtained, may not bring universal happiness all at once. There’ll have to be a period of adjustment, a long “shake-down cruise” for the law, just as for a new aircraft carrier.
The future of US single payer can be seen in Canada:
Last week Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto family’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
“government-appointed adjudicators”, well that sure sounds more sellable than calling them a “death panel” doesn’t it?
HTML issue in above, from: “Last week….” until “pull the plug”
Should have been italicized to indicate it was lifted from another source.
Irrelevant to this oped. Also, a blatant scare tactic.
The comment made was relative to this from Shelby:Millennial perfection not yet transforms Obamacare into the Single Payer Health system needed by real civilizations…
Well it’s pretty surprising to hear you “cost-conscious” conservatives advocating to keep a “near-dead husband and father on life support” when you aren’t paying for it. Not to sound incredibly insensitive and inhuman, but one of the reasons our healthcare system is so expensive is because people insist on keeping relatives who are in an “irreversible vegetative state” alive because they aren’t seeing the “back-end” costs and are making decisions purely based on emotions. And really, you don’t think our “insurance appointed adjudicators” don’t pull plugs and deny care based on cost? Are you serious?? How many people have been denied treatment because the insurance companies, private corporations make their decisions based on “profit” not the health and well being of the patient? Here’s an interesting article to keep you busy about the Canadian healthcare system http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html#.Ul4gymOttew.email
Sounds like you are admitting that Sarah was right; We do have death panels. It just is a matter of who sits on the panel.
I will pass on AARPropaganda, thank you though.
I couldn’t think of anything Sara was right about if I spent the rest of my life trying, but we HAVE always had death panels, they just happen to wear insurance company suits. You can call the AARP article propaganda, but I just checked with my in-laws, who happily and healthily live in Canada and have for their entire lives so they know the “before and after” of “socialized medicine” and they confirmed the article is 100% accurate, but you can keep listening to Fox and Friends for your news.
couldn’t think of anything Sara was right about if I spent the rest of my life trying, but we HAVE always had death panels,
You actually do not see the contradiction in that statement, do you?
PS: I rarely watch Fox news.
Once again, cherry picking what I said – I said “they just happen to wear insurance company suits.”
Sara was implying that the US Government was going to come into your hospital room and pull the plug.
Sadly, she so misunderstood and twisted the issue she was talking about. It was supposed to make services available to families of terminally ill patients to provide them with full information about what their options were for their loved one. Full information from a doctor, so the doctor could actually get paid for their time spent with the family of the terminally ill patient. But if that’s a death panel in your world, ok, you got me.
Karen, who has the final say in the event of a disagreement?
In Canada, it is the federal government, as the Courts just ruled. Thinking that will not be the case here is naïve.
Thinking it will be is fantasy.
Thinking it’s possible to reason with Obama haters is fantasy, too, Karen.
No, the insurance companies will continue to have the final say because we don’t have “socialized medicine” here!! The ACA is not socialized medicine, is it insurance provided, government subsidized in some cases (just like Medicare Advantage) medicine.
Insurance companies, based purely on cost benefit analyses decide now who gets treatment and who doesn’t. They decide on what that treatment will be, and if there’s a cheaper way to do it, regardless of what the doctor recommended, that’s all they will pay for.
How many old people get the plug pulled on them through Medicare? Not many because the doctors only get paid if the patients are still alive. The doctors are calling the shots with Medicare, the truly government run healthcare system. My dad was terminally ill in Florida. There was no hope of recovery yet every day a new doctor would come in to his room to “check up on him” and then go out to the nurse’s station or back to their office to bill Medicare. I can’t even imagine what his healthcare costs were because Medicare covered everything, but all they did was prolong the inevitable because he was a cash cow for them. You guys want to talk about fraud and abuse?? Florida is a hotbed for that type of waste. My dad was miserable, absolutely miserable and his quality of life was even worse, but the hospital and doctors kept telling him, “try this, or this, or maybe this,” all the while knowing that nothing, absolutely nothing was going to make a bit of difference. It wasn’t until one brave doctor came in and asked, “Ah, why are you doing this? None of it’s going to work. You have terminal lung cancer” that he was finally able to see what was going on. Now my step-mother didn’t want to hear that, but my dad was able to decide enough was enough.
There are ways to prevent “true death panels” as sister Sara would call them, but just making blanket statements like “Canada’s system is bad because it’s ‘socialized’ and we don’t want any of that here” does nothing to help get us to a system that benefits everyone fairly.
A huge leap and typical of scare tactics from the right. I suppose you support insurance company death panels?
Insurance companys have utilization panels of doctors/nurses that make decisions not clerks.
Yes they do. Paid for by the insurance companies to make decisions for the good of the insurance companies’ shareholders. How long do you think those doctors and nurses would last if they approved whatever treatment doctors or patients wanted? Not long. I’m going to make a suggestion to all of you who are so opposed to the ACA – please read “Deadly Spin” by Wendell Potter. It’s not propaganda – he was a top executive for Aetna Healthcare; until they denied a liver transplant to a 16 year old girl because it would have cost too much money. They tried to call it “experimental.” By the time they were shamed in to approving the treatment, she was dead. All those talking points you hear on TV and in the paper? Straight from the top levels of the healthcare/insurance industry puppetmasters. Really, it’s a fabulous book, a bit maddening really, but quite an eye opener.
Karen are you on a Kaiser Plan. Every had any thing denied. There are appeals and almost all of them are in favor of the patient. At one time a few years back I might agree with you. I did spend some time in the Medical field so I am not a novice at this. I do understand it very well.
Well yes I am and you, in this particular case, are correct. Kaiser is completely unique from every other insurance provider though. They are a true HMO, universal healthcare system. I think that if we had tried to implement a national system based on the Kaiser model that would have been fabulous. Many liberals would have been dancing in the streets. Bernie Sanders would have been a happy man. Well, until the lobbyists from Blue Cross, Aetna, Blue Shield, Health Plans of America, Catholic Healthcare West, Sisters of Mercy . . . should I go on? all started looking for their piece of the pie. I too was in the healthcare industry for many years so I understand it very well too.
Well, until the lobbyists from Blue Cross, Aetna, Blue Shield, Health Plans of America, Catholic Healthcare West, Sisters of Mercy …
and gave us 0h-bummer-Kare
Calling out the truth is a scare tactic? Huh?
So, it’s the ‘truth’ that we will have an identical health care system as Canada has? Thanks, Kreskin. While you’re at it, can you tell me tomorrow’s winners at Golden Gate Fields?
If you find out those winner at GGF, will you share?
Obamacare is a subsidized healthcare plan. I have no problem with that except who will now pay for that? That must be explained in detail. It is not like S/S which is a self funded plan by the employee/employer. What has happened it that now lower income folks will get a break on price based on income regardless if they had a plan before. They now could pay less for their plan. We all hope that folks that did not have insurance now apply and get a good price to be covered. That was the intent of Obamacare. Urge folks into buying healthcare with subsides to make it more attractive to those folks. Medicaid has always been available to low income folks at very reasonable prices. It the young and healthy do not sign up and instead choose to pay the penalty/tax this program is going to explode in cost to the tax payers. It was sold on the fact that it was going to be paid for by other reductions. That will not happen. If in fact this plan had been sold as socialized healthcare which it is it would have never passed. That is exactly what it is and if the tax payers want that so be it. I have no problem helping folks to a get a better life for themselves but not as this plan is devised. Obamacare did help the writer and his family, that is good. I have a Medicare Kaiser Advantage plan. My prescriptions went up 50% along with out of pocket not including presriptions by 70%. Many other regular procedures also went up. So am I and many others now paying more to subsidize others? Where is my benefit from Obamacare? Or do folks like me not count? That has never been fully explained.
Bob, do you not think the federal government subsidizes the costs of Medicare Advantage? That what you pay and the services you get are exactly the same as what traditional Medicare patients pay and get? If that were true, why have Medicare Advantage? You paid into Medicare, why not just receive the services that you paid for? The federal government, in a sweet deal for the insurance companies, which is exactly what the ACA is too, negotiated rates for Medicare Advantage where the Feds “subsidize your premiums” according to Politifact –
“Medicare Advantage members pay premiums just like people who get their benefits through original Medicare. The private companies turn a profit depending in part on how well they manage costs of care.” Here’s the kicker Bob — “Sweetening the deal: The government spends more per person — 7% more last year for Advantage beneficiaries compared with those in original Medicare, estimated the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t like subsidizing your Medicare and why should I have to? You and the rest of the “get off my lawn crowd of “around 14.4 million seniors and disabled people — that’s 28 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries — are in Medicare Advantage, the most ever” and I think you are a burden to the taxpayers. And that Medicare Part D plan, well, that’s another huge burden on the taxpayers because ol’ Georgie made sure that Big Pharma was handsomely rewarded by making it “illegal” for Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices. So you and all the other seniors are paying through the nose for prescriptions and the government is too while Big Pharma hums a happy tune all the way to the Caymen Islands.
Now demanding that you get off the dole and on to traditional Medicare is absurd right, Bob?? How dare I say you, Bob Livesay, are a burden to the rest of us hard working taxpayers? If your premiums went up and your co-pays went up, which they do every year and have every year for Medicare Advantage patients looong before the ACA, well then maybe that’s because you’re just paying more of “your fair share of the cost.” You know, doing your part to make sure that you aren’t being a “taker.”
Doesn’t that make you feel good that you’re getting closer to being a “true conservative”?
Karen apparently you do not like Seniors or is just Bob Livesay Mr. Reasonable. Your choice Karen. Remember medicare is a fully funded benefit. Yes is could go unfunded in a few years. But at present it is fully funded. By both employee and the employer with no cap. So make a mil and stil pay 1.45 %. S/S has a cap, reach it and you stop paying your FICA on S/S. Traditional Medicare is deductable from your s/s check. You then have a choice to go to a Medicare Advantage plan or supplement or part D. Your choice, not mandated by Obamacare. Karen you are wrong on premium medicare advantage, co-pays etc. They do not go up every year. This is the first increase in the last few years on many Medicare Advantage plans. Traditional medicare by law does go up every year as does the deductable amount. So each and every year you are on regular medicare you pay the deductible first then the 80/20. Get your facts squared away. By the way Karen medicare/medicare advantage are not a burden to tax payers its the liberals that want everything for free that are the real burden. Are you proud of that Karen?
No Bob, I don’t dislike seniors, not even you. I was making the point that Medicare Advantage is a “federally subsidized health plan.” But you must have missed the part of my post where it says that the federal government subsidizes about 7% of the cost for Medicare Advantage participants with close to 28% of all medicare beneficiaries participating or 14.4 MILLION seniors. The ACA isn’t a tax burden either and it’s not free so stop saying that it is. And I am definitely proud that I don’t feel like “I got mine, screw everyone else.”
Karen stated:it says that the federal government subsidizes about 7% of the cost for Medicare Advantage
7 per cent? Accepting that as a given fact, I would say this: If we could assure that coverage would be provided to all Americans and legal residents at a net impact of an increase of 7% (I would accept a number which is a bit higher), then that would have a significant impact on my support for 0h-bummer-Kare.
But take Steve’s case in point. He pays $265 per month and we tax payers chip in $500 a month. That means we are subsidizing 65% of the annual premium.
This is an unsustainable model.
Or, could it perhaps be that the majority of insurance plans in this country are grossly overpriced? Like jewelry. Everyone feels all warm and fuzzy because they got 50% to 70% of some fine gemstone when the markup on it was 80% or more! Shouldn’t the entire healthcare system throw out the “Chargemaster” model and come up with a workable, reasonable solution that provides quality care and allows a profit, but not a kidnapper’s ransom? If the government is subsidizing 65% of anyone’s premium then perhaps we should be looking at those premiums in the first place!!
And the 7% was taken straight from PolitiFACT.
Karen that stated subsidy is very small AND could be covered by a small increase in payroll medicare deductions. Not so with Obamacare. Medicare and Medicare advantage are very well run programs.
No Bob, that subsidy, regardless of the size is still a FEDERAL government subsidy so that you can have a better healthcare plan that the other shlubs on straight Medicare. If you want that additional benefit, Great! But my point was, why should I have to pay for it to subsidize you?? We all have those medicare deductions to cover our basic Medicare. You have something in addition to that. It should be your cost, on the open market, like a true capitalist (and like they do in Canada!!)
I will pay more.
Darn in Robert , there you go making sense again.
Subsidized by the American Taxpayer. Lets just call this what it really is, another tax. Another burden on the economy. Another step towards socialism. I think it is time we have a tea party.
You must hate Medicare.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/what-happens-to-people-whose-insurance-is-cancelled-because-of-obamacare
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-more-americans-want-to-keep-or-expand-obamacare-than-repeal-it
The mere title of the source of this link is a pretty good dead giveaway to extreme bias. Talking Points? Really? Give me a break.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-healthplans-20131030,0,5590179.story#axzz2jJs5v5EZ
Perhaps something from the LA Times Business Section might be more to your liking?
Ifit’s all hype explain the 300,000 policies cancelled last week in Florida. Tell those that got the letters, oh it’s not true. It’s just hype.
Spin, spin, spin ….. lie, lie, lie.
That’s as far as you got, isn’t it?
C’mon…who needs to read and learn? When your gut tells you something, it has to be right.
I read enough
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/what-happens-to-people-whose-insurance-is-cancelled-because-of-obamacare
It’s a Kaiser poll.
JLB,
You might find this of interest:
And the hits just keep on coming:
Key Figure at UnitedHealth Group Was Major Obama Donor
Late last week, the Obama administration named Quality Software Services Inc. (QSSI) to be the new general contractor in charge of the emergency operation to fix the glitches plaguing the government’s healthcare website….
Anthony Welters… his wife Beatrice bundled donations totaling between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama’s campaign. In 2009…contributing a total of $100,000, as well as bundling an additional $300,000
Soon thereafter, the Obama administration nominated Beatrice Welters to serve as the ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago.
Anthony and Beatrice Welters and their sons, Andrew and Bryant, have contributed more than $258,000 to various candidates and committees — almost all of them Democratic –.
Looks like Tony’s tony investments in 0bama are paying huge dividends. Mind you, these are the same people who were hired to develop some aspects of this fiasco.
Of course all of this was to be expected. Note the date of the piece, Oct 28. Yet I saw only one paper (NY Post) covering this huge story.
Because ambassadorships have never gone to campaign donors. Yawn.
“It’s called cherry picking.” enviropro
As usual you make no sense.
That’s what happens when I quote one of the progs.
And it’s STILL the closest you get to legitimacy!
If the NY Post (the Faux News of newspapers) is the only newspaper to cover this story, that would discredit the story. And, if the NY Post is a source of news for you, that would explain much of what you post.
“It’s called cherry picking.” enviropro
The link was to “opensecrets.org”
Ahhh…so your source considers a story only covered by the NY Post as legit. Thanks for the clarification.
No, you have it backwards:
Open Secrets’ (a very neutral site) story is dated Oct 28.
NY Post is dated Nov. 1.
Imagine that, only one paper (NY Post) covering this HUGE story. Go figure.
Karen said: covering this HUGE story.
Snarkasim aside, your comment, as well as that of others serves to prove what I wrote about in this piece in May of this year.
Ignoring (for now) the numerous lies that have come forward recent weeks, we have this story, being virtually ignored, which can be summarized as:
a) Obama bundler/contributor wins plum job (on a no bid basis), worth tens of millions to help build Healthcare.gov
b) Healthcare.gov is over budget, off schedule, not beta tested, failing miserably and is now a laughing stock in the tech world.
c) Additional tens of millions will be required to fix it.
d) Solution: Hire the same Obama bundler/contributor on a no bid basis to fix the mess he help create.
This is lunacy without comparison.
(And before anyone mentions Haliburton, be reminded that Bill Clinton canceled a legal contract with a French company to award a no bid job to Halliburton.)
Any Democrat with any sense of honesty, integrity and loyalty to the people of this country should be up in arms regarding this entire fiasco. But the silence is astounding.
Those opposed only get accusations that they are “extremists” or “haters” or even “traitors”.
Dennis, there is no question that the rollout of the healthcare website has been horrible but the “faux outrage” by the right that “their constituents have had to wait hours to get online” is ridiculous. If they REALLY cared about their constituents they would have worked with their state representatives to implement the state exchanges. Those are working well and the feds never intended to have to set up exchanges for 2/3 of the country so there’s some culpability there on the right too. They are playing both sides against the middle. That said, I don’t know enough (anything) about the folks who contributed to Obama and then developed healthcare.gov but it still doesn’t rise to Dick Cheney being asked to find a vice president for George and then picking himself and then filling all construction, contract, ect., positions in Iraq and Afghanistan with Halliburton personnel from here to eternity costing the country billions of dollars and thousands of lives. There is no way that a comparison can be made about how much money has been spent, wasted, whatever on the website, when Senor Cruz missle shut down the government to try and unravel the whole plan and cost the taxpayers $24 BILLION dollars. Get him to pay that back somehow and then I will be just as outraged as you about the costs of the website, that the right never wanted in the first place.
So allow me to summarize:
Bush and Cheney who ‘owned this house’ before us were despicable, terrible people
who did despicable terrible things,
which is why we are doing more of the same and you hater’s should just shut up.
(PS: I note you gave Clinton a pass)
Well I’m not sure what you’re summarizing, but it’s not what I wrote above. Why is it that when presented with facts you guys always walk around with your fingers in your ears singing, lalalalalalalalal, I can’t HEAR you? You commented on someone whose pockets may have been lined who set up the website that hasn’t worked as an example of Obama’s “lunacy without comparison.” I merely pointed out that spending trillions of dollars on a questionable war, losing thousands of innocent lives and then ANOTHER $24 Billion a few weeks ago for a temper tantrum is a bit more insane. If the website costs exceed $24 Billion, trillions of dollars and starts killing thousands of people, I will concede. Otherwise? Keep digging.
Ethical question: Is Steve is doing the right thing?
English?
Karen. You are impressive. I had an uncle who would argue the negative side of anything no matter what the subject was. He never won an argument nor made much sense but it was the only thing he knew how to do. It kept him busy. The family just put up with him and took care of him anyway because it was the right thing to do. I see that you do the same for strangers on this comments section.
Keep up the good work. You have a good mind and a kind heart. I also learn more details on this subject.
Thanks.
I’m not sure if I just got dissed or complimented ;}.
Complimented.
Well, thank you! This is too important an issue to keep spinning misinformation but Steve is really the one handling it beautifully.
Steve I hope you do not feel the folks commenting about Obamacare negatively are pointing at you. They are not, just pointing to a system that appears to be heading in the wrong direction for what it really was intended. I would also ask if the folks getting subsidized Obamacare are also getting any other subsidized help. I would assume many of those same folks would qualify for these subsidies. Most subsidies are intended to help when help is needed. I assume Steve that as soon as your career takes off you could lose this Obamacare subsidy. My concern is not that someone is getting it now but what happens when they no longer qualify. Do we up the standard so they keep the same subsidy. Remember what happened to SNAP. So as you see most of us would assume as the employee rate drops to about 4% which will be considered full employment these folks now will be able to pay the non subsidized rate. If that is the case then the cost will go down. Now does anyone believe that.
Thanks Robert. And no, I don’t take what people say here personally. I enjoy hearing and reading different points of view. That’s how I learn. How could I ever grow as a person if I didn’t give serious thought to what others have to say?
That being said, I say give Obamacare a chance to work. It’s as if people are complaining that their five-day-old child isn’t walking yet……or will never walk. Give it time. The world won’t come to an end if we give this a few years to give us a sense of whether it works or not. If it doesn’t work, the people will speak at the voting booth and the law will be changed or repealed. But if it does work…….
Very well put.
It may be a good idea… but at present, the hard-working middle class is paying for it. How about the family of two, who is not eligible, due to household income being slightly over the max? When I say slightly over the max… I don’t mean living high on the hog. I mean two full-time jobs being worked, pennies being pinched, and still barely able to make ends meet. Our rates have gone up significantly. Our fearless clowns in Washington will never agree on enough spending cuts, nor the right ones, to pay for this new “law”… so for now… it’s simply a tax for me… the largest dispersal of wealth we have ever seen. Congrats to the folks that need the handouts, and are getting them.
All it is doing is greatly increasing the demand, without increasing the supply. You don’t have to be a Rocket “Surgeon” to see what is coming down the pike…
Looks like we’ll need to hire more doctors, nurses, etc. More jobs! Thank you, Obamacare!
If things are that tight for the two of you, you probably qualify for some type of reduced rate. You really should look into it more thoroughly. As for spending, it’s at the lowest level in years, our deficit is down from $1.7 Trillion in 2009 to $700 Billion and this is not really a tax for you. There were no taxes implemented on the middle class (which by your previous comment I’m assuming you are in) to pay for this. You should check out other sources of information, you might find that it’s not all doom and gloom.
It might as well be a “tax”… I think YOU should dig in to this a bit more thoroughly… rates have risen for many… just to get the same coverage,,, Deducts are higher.. premiums have gone skyward… and men have to pay in to maternity and pre-natal care… I am all for everyone having some type of coverage, but you will see, in due time, that this so-called law is a big fat loser. Btw… did you write that, or did you copy/paste one of our Presidents last 40 speeches? Same rhetoric day in, and day out. So, if it’s NOT a tax… why are some paying more (much more) for the same coverage they had before? Research it, don’t just listen to our POTUS on CNN.
Definitely seems like Karen has done much more research than you. Just sayin.
Good comment.
comment was for Bushdoctor64, yes a good comment
I look at all this through a different lens. Why do we all pay for Auto insurance? Because with lots of people paying into the system, your premium is supposed to go DOWN. There’s enough in the pool to cover claims. You may not make a claim this year, or next, or for some long time, BUT when you have that unexpected accident, your claim will be covered. It’s that pooling of resources that allows the system to work. I suspect something similar will occur with the ACA . Premiums per individual should go DOWN, providing insurance companies use the pooled funds for the clients, and not their own excessive profits.
I just explained to my wife, that it isn’t fair that we have 2 bicycles, and the neighbor around the corner has none. So, I think the only thing to do, is give them one of our bicycles! She can walk.
Fun with (inapt) analogies!
I need bike too, but it’s somewhat telling that he’s making his wife walk. 😉
I need a bike too, although I do find it telling that he would make his wife walk while he took the remaining bike 😉
Ironically, there are many communities with bike share programs. F’ing commies!
The lifestyles of the rich and famous liberals are contradictory to
their philosophy and their talking points. In reality, they are just hypocritical snake oil salesmen. When they start to act like Mother
Teresa, only then should the world listen and respect them. Until
then, the economic, social and political policies that these people
will try to put in place will lead to disaster. Policies based on
the erroneous assumption that mankind is not driven by self-interest will lead to rules and regulations that attempt to impose ‘idealistic’ goals on those that deviate from this philosophy. Currently, the conservatives (40+% of the population) are considered deviants by the liberals. In order to regulate the behavior of such a large group, government needs to be huge to enforce its rules and regulations. This is currently taking place as the government now represents 40% of GDP. Any further growth in government will put the liberal politician in a position of undisputed power. And, as we all know, power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. The current liberal agenda is that the government needs be the judge and jury of economic and social policy. This is a dangerous agenda that flies in the face of individual liberty and leads to despotic governments. History tells us that the usurpation of power follows the concentration of power.
Should we wait an see if history repeats itself again or should we act to save ourselves?
Please explain why the economy routinely thrives under Democrats and is typically much weaker under the Whigs.
explain
“Please explain why the economy routinely thrives under Democrats and is typically much weaker under the Whigs.”
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (not Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity), every Republican president since 1950 (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) had at least one full calendar year where our country lost more jobs than it created. For several of those Republican presidents, there was more than one year of negative job growth. But of all the Democratic presidents during that 62-year span (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama), our country experienced only ONE calendar year of negative job growth. That was in 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency. You know……the first year after inheriting our worst economy since the Great Depression. All six Republican presidents had at least one bad year, if not more. The Democrats IN TOTAL have had one bad year………the first year of cleaning up a Republican’s mess.
Your last Republican president began his first term with the DOW Jones Industrial Average at 10581.90. After eight glorious years, he left office with the DOW at 8281.22 and sinking like a rock. Bush 43 became only the third U.S. President to have the DOW finish LOWER at the end of his presidency than where it began. The other two? Herbert Hoover, who birthed the Great Depression and then “let the free market work itself out.” Thanks Herb. And ‘Tricky’ Dick Nixon. Three failed presidencies economically……..all Republicans.
Obama takes over the disaster left behind by Bush and has run off 43 consecutive months of positive job growth. That’s more than 3 1/2 years with not a single negative month. Contrast that to the situation he inherited, where we were losing 500,000 to 700,000 every month. The DOW was at 8281.22 and falling fast when Obama was sworn in back in 2009. SIX WEEKS into his presidency it had dropped to 6547.05. Now it’s at 15615.55, only 65 points off the all-time high Obama set last Tuesday. Our S&P 500 numbers are similar. He’s more than doubled the value of the stock market since it hit rock bottom on March 9, 2009..
Ronald Reagan, hero of the Republican Party, had the DOW go from 970.99 to 2239.11, an impressive gain of 130.6 percent in eight years. That’s the biggest gain under any Republican. The DOW under Bill Clinton went from 3525.99 to 10581.90, a gain of 200.1 percent. Roosevelt, arguably the most liberal president of all time, went from 53.84 (thanks Herb) to 158.06, a gain of 194 percent. The DOW grew only 0.2 percent under Carter, but even that was better than Nixon (negative 21.7 percent) in a flat decade economically.
And Republicans have no credibility whining about deficits. Reagan shattered the deficit record in his day. Bush 41 had deficits every year of his presidency. Bush 43 shattered the deficit record during his disastrous presidency. Clinton had budget deficits in each of the first five years of his presidency, but in each case, the deficit went DOWN, not up. We had a budget surplus in each of his final three years.
If Republicans in congress would get out of the way of progress, we could improve upon the Obama achievements conservatives choose to ignore or destroy.
Steve,
From the above it seems that you hold a President 100% responsible for all actions during his term in office commencing with inauguration day.
To be honest, that is neither logical or rational. It ignores the actions taken by Congress, as well as the lasting impact of Presidential decisions, which can impact the nation for several years and often times much longer.
Examples are numerous, but do you really hold Nixon responsible for the economic situation he inherited as a result of Vietnam? Or is it fair to saddle Reagan with the recession of ’81/82 due to the failings of Carter?
Well Steve it appears you are a very Liberal Socialist. I now understand why Obamacare is to your liking. Thanks for letting me pay for healthcare. Are you happy that a Conservative is paying for it and not whinning. I will follow up with a comment on your numbers later.
Bob, did you cancel your Medicare Advantage plan? No? It appears you ARE a very whinny Conservative. I now understand why Medicare Advantage is to your liking. Thanks for letting me pay for your healthcare. Are you happy that a Liberal is paying for it and not whinning? I can’t wait to see your numbers later, but remember, we liberals are subsidizing you too.
Medicare Advantage is government funded in a very small way. If Obamacare was funded that way instead of Voo Doo funding everyone would be very happy. Before part D which the Liberals were against to help seniors there was very little prescription drug coverage. The former plans started to put in snall doses for competitive reasons. It worked and the Republicans saw that the seniors wanted it. The Democrats did not want i. So I would assume you Liberals are against helping seniors. Once that part D went active along came Medicare Advantage. Combining part A, B and D to save seniors money and at a very small amount of tax payers funds. In fact it is costing less than first thought. Now Obamacare will be a pure tax pay funded system not as the Regimnes says with Voo Doo funding. All Consetrvatives feel it is our obligation to help those ibn need and many others and glady do it. Not so the Liberals they want the Conservatives to pay their way. So to say a Liberal is
funding my Medicare Advantage is a contriction to their talking points. When as the Liberals say they want all us so called rich conservatives to pay their way. You know our fair share. We as they say do not need it. I will take the Liberals at their word. So how can it be possible that Liberals are paying or even conributing in any way if it is the Rich Conservatives and not the Liberals paying their fair share. Now Karen you may be in a high income bracket and just in the wrong party. Maybe you ,should consider a change. Think about it Karen. You say me when saying you are paying for my Medicare Advantage. Just how much is Me paying toward my Medicare Advantage. Karen you are wrong it is all us so called rich conservatives that are not only paying our fair share put the Liberals additional amounts as needed to give them their good life. Remeber Karen as I said Conservatives think it is our obligation to give our fair share and more to make Liberals life better. I hope you do appreciate that or do you think we still do not opay enough.
Great stuff Steve. They’ll need a few hours to come up with some slop showing that up is actually down.
“When they start to act like Mother Teresa, only then should the world listen and respect them.” Should the same apply to conservatives?
Sounds like Steve got a good deal but the money he saved is being picked up by the tax payers. Regardless of what we pay the health care costs did not decrease and somebody has to pay. Guess who that someone is.
I am proud that my taxes are helping people like Steve & his wife get affordable health care. I’m proud that Obamacare requires that preventive measures, such as yearly physical exams & mammograms, be free.
Please read this article about a Republican businessman, and former director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under George W. Bush, who sees how Obamacare can spawn new healthcare-related businesses. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/magazine/the-president-wants-you-to-get-rich-on-obamacare.html?ref=business
Like Steve said in one of his replies, let’s give Obamacare a chance. If it’s successful, we can all take pride in having turned a corner on a faulty healthcare system that was sucking the life’s blood out of our economy. If it’s not successful, then let’s fix it.
Excellent. A very American sentiment. Refreshing among some of the above statements.
The folks in the “middle” are picking up your tab… you are welcome. Of course all of the folks that can’t afford their own healthcare are applauding this clusterf*ck of a law… they are getting bigger and better handouts than they have been the last 10 years… Many of which have been on unemployment for the past 2 years, because the unemployment checks are as much as they would make if they were actually working… so why go out and find a job… Why don’t some of you number crunchers go out and research THAT! This country was already in trouble… and the loopholes, and freebies have spawned a whole new generation of takers. People that feel they are entitled… Yes… entitled to MY hard earned dollars. B.S. Get a job, pay your way, or move to Arbuckle or some place, where you can afford it. THAT’S what built this great country… like it or not. If you find an argument in that… you deserve what you get. If I stood out in front of Raley’s, with an upside down hat, asking for change, would you same people throw me a dime? I rest my case. So many love Obama, because so many are in trouble… well I work hard so my wife and I can live the life we choose… not so I can help pay someone else’s bills. Where were all of you nice neighbors when I lost my job, and was pounding the pavement every day until I found another… Where were you when my mortgage banker was about to foreclose on me? Where were you all when I had a dental procedure that was going to cost me too much, so I put it off for a time? Where were you all when I had to sell personal items to pay my PG&E? I’ll tell you where you were… you were home… sitting on the sofa, instead of looking for a job… collecting unemployment… figuring you would look after the funds stopped coming… THANK YOU SO MUCH! Nobody is entitled… you need to EARN what you have… THAT is the American way… like me or hate me… makes no difference, because I speak the truth. If you have so much extra, then be a philanthropist and give it away… otherwise.. shut your pie-hole…
I don’t know about anyone else but I stopped reading after “I rest my case.” A logical end point.
Sounds like the world is passing you by, bush doctor. Don’t cling too hard to your guns and religion.
PS I would put a dime in your hat.
“well I work hard so my wife and I can live the life we choose” She doesn’t have a job?
I would put a twenty in the hat not a dime. That is the difference Hank. Conservatives want to help and not leave it to the Liberals.
Ha! Never would happen. You’d just tell bush doctor to get a job, etc., etc. ad nauseam
I would give him the money and then help him get a job because he wants to work and not take a hand out. I would assume as a good Liberal you might even borrow a twenty from a Conservative to help someone that does not want a hand out. Something to think about Hank. Conservatives feel obligated to help and do it willingly.
How would you know he wants to work and not take a handout? Would you ask him? Do you ask that of every homeless person or panhandler you meet?
Yes I do. I offer work for payment. A good hourly rate and guess what they all will take the money rather than work. So guess what no hand out. Hank he did say he wanted to work.
Unemployment benefits may seem like a “handout” to some, but those benefits also contribute to our economy. Without unemployment benefits, not only would the unemployed population be without money, but our economy would also suffer. People who receive unemployment benefits use that money to buy food, pay for services, put a dent in their bills, their mortgage/rent, their insurance payments, etc.
Someone very close to me was laid off in December 2009. He was making about $65K/year at that job. In August 2011, he found a job paying $10/hour (about $20K/year). He grabbed it and has held on ever since. He will begin receiving Social Security at the end of this month (when he turns 62) while he continues to work his job (which now pays a whopping $12/hour). He and his wife work full time. They live in North Carolina. They can barely make ends meet. And had he not had those unemployment benefits from 2009 to 2011, he & his wife would have had to sell their house, at a loss, so no equity, and who knows where they would have ended up.
Personally, I prefer that my taxes go to help others, rather than to some defense contractor to make fighter jets that the Pentagon doesn’t want.
Healthcare costs in this country have been sucking our country’s economy dry for years. One small change that the ACA will enact is paying doctors for successful outcomes and not on a per-procedure basis. That alone will begin to reduce the stranglehold our health care industry has on our economy.
Let’s give ACA a chance.
What do I think? I think “jeanius” is on the right track, and that a lot of the commentary on this article has gone WAY OFF topic.
It usually does. How’s it feel to be labeled a “very liberal socialist”?
I believe your statement on unemployment was very good. Your friends showed they wanted to work and the help in between was something they earned and it appears wanted to get off it as soon as possible. I am a Conservative and I also believe my taxers should go to help others because I believe Conservatives are obligated and want to help the needy and others. That by no means every Liberal cause is a needed cause. Healthcare needed to be fixed but not to the extent of Obamacare. Lets hope it helps the folks that need that help and not just an added benefit to others that are capable of paying their own way.
There is no doubt that some people will see savings with the ACA. As witnessed by this article. But let’s look at the larger picture and ask the basic question, “Is it worth it”?
First, the author mentions that a family of four with an income of $94,000 will receive assistance. But who pays for “assistance”? It’s not free. Businesses and other individuals pay for this “assistance”. And this additional burden will impact the economy and hiring. Also, young healthy people will be paying. And most are not signing up for the ACA. So who covers that gap? Deficit financing.
Second, should we as a nation be financing families that make nearly $100k income? Can we afford this? Shouldn’t families with $100k in income self dependent? Clearly, the author did make enough to buy insurance, he didn’t like it, but he managed it. He is happy that he now saves money. But can we afford such largesse?
Finally, the vast majority of the ACA subscribers are being channeled to MediCaid as recent reports indicate. This will explode our already obscene deficits and MediCaid is certainly not great coverage.
It is evident that with the ACA if you are middle or upper middle income, you benefit. If you are poor, you get MediCaid. Is this really what we want?
Just to clarify, my monthly premium before the ACA was $430 per month, which was 28 percent of my monthly salary. I have to work for about a week and a half just to pay my insurance premium. All that’s left over from my salary is barely enough to cover rent. And my wife had no insurance at all. It was either get her insurance and starve or be able to afford food and clothing. So……no…..we could hardly “afford” insurance before the ACA. Now we can……which is the whole point of Obamacare.
Steve did you look into MediCal. Your salary was below 20,000 a year, more like about 18,500 a year. Do not know what your wife made per week/month. But it sure does sound like you would have qualified for MediCal before Obamacare. Maybe not. Did you inquire? Obamacare was designed to help people like yourself. In your case lets hope it is only for a while as you get your feet on the ground. I have no problem helping people on their way up the work ladder. I do believe the big problem could be if when you do start to make more money and subsidies goes away or decrease. Then how will you feel?
My wife and I don’t make much, but it’s a little too much to qualify for Medi-Cal…..even after the expansion through the ACA. I asked when I applied for ACA, but I’m just over the threshold. We’re one of those “working poor” families that struggles to get by every month but doesn’t receive things like Food Stamps, welfare, Medi-Cal……or any other government “handout” as conservatives like to call it. I never complained that others received those things while my family struggled to pay the rent each monh. Heck, if someone is making less than my family, I don’t know how they could put food on the table or keep a roof over the head without some sort of assistance.
Perhaps the real issue here is salary. I have a BA in Journalism with 25 years experience in my occupation, work a full-time job that requires several different skills……writing, editing, graphic design, photography, communication with the public, among others. Yet my employer pays me a slave’s wage with no health care benefits of any kind and no 401K plan. I’ll let you in on a little secret. NO ONE at the Benicia Herald gets a raise. Ever! In fact, I’m making LESS money now than I did when I first took this job eight years ago……due to our salaries getting cut during the Bush recession. But I still have the same workload. I just get paid less for doing it.
Maybe if employers paid living wages, offered health care to their employees and gave raises every couple of years or so, Obamacare wouldn’t be necessary. But we live in a system where millions of people make $10 or less per hour while a few make millions (or billions). As long as we’re going to pay people peanuts for hard work, government “handouts” will be necessary or we’ll live in a society where a few people live in mansions and gated communities while millions live in shanty towns.
Someone posted earlier about how their CPA said his taxes were going up. I sure wish I could afford my own CPA……or had any assets to need a CPA. Some people just don’t realize how lucky they are and have no sympathy for people who work their tails off every day and yet still find it hard to make ends meet. Next time you shop at the store or the mall, tell the cashier (who probably makes $10 an hour or less) they don’t work hard. See what kind of response you get.
Steve to dish your employer on this run is not a good move. How could anyone with your skills and 25 years of expierince make less then $8.90 an hour. Steve this whole issue is starting to sound a little suspect. I do hope your employer which apparently is this paper will way in and confirm exactilty what you are saying. Steve I have no idea what you have been doing for the last 25 years. But it certainly does not sound if you have been persuing a career. Steve at this point I must say there is something not right here. You just admitted it. It appears to me someone gave you an opportunity to achieve your goals and you just ripped tham a new one. Sorry Steve I have no concerns about you any more.. There is something very wrong here and I do not wish yt be part of a conspiracy.
Not sure, Robert, what it is you don’t believe.
Would you like to talk with my editor and find out why I haven’t received a raise in 8 years? Wanna confirm with him that I get paid well under $400 per week? Wanna confirm with him that EVERYONE at the B-H had their salaries cut a few years ago?
Wanna talk to employees at the Benicia Herald and find ANYONE who has EVER received a raise? Even people who have been working there for 10 years and more?
Wanna find a B-H employee who has health care through our employer?
Wanna hear the recording I made with the ACA agent where she quotes my new premium and all of the new benefits my family is getting? I’d be more than happy to meet with you sometime at the B-H and let you listen to how the ACA works.
Everything in my article is completely accurate. I’d be more than willing to bring in my old and current Kaiser brochures with rate charges so you can see how much better life is for me under the ACA.
I know you don’t WANT to believe any of this, but it’s the truth.
Maybe you should write a letter to the editor — addressed to the publisher of the paper —- and discover why no one here ever gets a raise…..and why no one here makes a decent wage. We’ve had employees here with Masters degrees who made less than $15 per hour.
Yes……that’s the world we’re living in.
Yes…..you could say I should just get a higher-paying job, but that would only solve MY problem…..not THE problem……which is a job that requires college-level skills put pays worse than people who clean bathrooms for a living. If I leave, some other poor schmuck takes the job with no benefits for a slave’s wage. And then HE’LL be getting assistance under the ACA.
Maybe it”s not the hard-working poor you should be angry with. Maybe it’s the “job creators” who are making big money for doing virtually nothing and living off the hard work of their employees.
Hello, Bob?
Steve’s employer published Steve’s article in this forum.
Steve’s employer, the Benicia Herald, can’t afford to pay for Steve’s health insurance, nor can the Herald pay for raises.
Benicia Herald’s editor read Steve’s column and knew exactly what Steve was saying.
There is no deception here.
Steve,
A few comments regarding various subjects that have come forward on this thread:
NO ONE at the Benicia Herald gets a raise. Ever!</i
Biting the hand the hand that feeds you rarely gives one more food.
I have a BA in Journalism with 25 years experience in my occupation,
One has to assume that you stick with it because you love it. There are other reasons, I am sure, many of them are not very attractive and I won’t address those possibilities.
work a full-time job that requires several different skills……writing, editing, graphic design, photography, communication with the public, among others.
I notice ‘selling advertising is not on the list. If that is an oversight, then my next comment is not pertinent; Why not ask for an arrangement where you participate in revenue derived from advertising which you generate.
slave’s wage with no health care benefits of any kind and no 401K plan.
I assume you have been at the Herald long enough to have learned how profitable the paper has been in the last number of years. There comes a time when a business man has to make a decision and can no longer afford to keep a struggling business alive. To pay the salaries and benefits you seek for yourself and others would likely be the final straw. Sing your numbers:
Salary increased from $20K to 28K. Cost = $8K
Health Care. Cost $9K
401K Cost $2.8K
Total added cost to BH= $20K (rounding up)
That is about what you earn now. Multiply that times the number of employees. How long would the BH survive with an added 80 to 100K in expenses?
Steve, you have made many valid comments here, but given the field you have chosen, the demands you are asking are unrealistic.
I didn’t notice any “demands” in Steve’s post. He was pointing out for those who couldn’t believe he actually needed the benefits the ACA offers what his situation was. And my understanding of 401k plans is there is no “requirement” that employers contribute. They can (and then get a tax writeoff), but they are generally set up for employees to put their own, tax deferred money way for retirement. Unfortunately, when you must decide between eating, paying your rent or planning for those golden years, guess what gets chopped off?
Add career counselor to the list.
I understand your statement and I am happy your insurance payments are lower.
But … The COST of insurance did not go down. It went up, but your payment went down. The difference was cost shifted off to the public and other tax payers. Your family benefited while others pay more. That is the TRUE story behind the ACA. It’s not designed to lower costs, it is designed to take from others to help subsidize the few.
The ACA adds burdens to the insurance industry. These burdens come in the form of additional minimum requirements. Perhaps these are good things, BUT they do add to the cost of insurance. Costs are going up!
As a society, we need to analyze all of this. Clearly, the author has benefited. But has society? Our deficits will go up as we cost shift to a higher degree. Companies will lose profit resulting in higher unemployment rates. 401k retirements will be affected as profits impact the markets. Cost shifting is not savings. Lets be clear.
The question at hand should not be if a few will benefit (they will), but is the ACA the best way to operate a healthcare system?
The CoveredCA.com web site says, “… individuals who make $45,960 or less and families
of four that make $94,200 or less may qualify for financial assistance.” That “may qualify” doesn’t necessarily mean all families of four making up to $94,200 *will* qualify.
And if a family of four DOES qualify for financial assistance, I seriously doubt they will get 100% finance assistance. Since I don’t fall into this category, I can’t determine the amount of financial assistance they will get.
I also hope we’re all aware that employers who provide health insurance to their employees are financially assisting those employees by paying some, or all, of the employees’ health insurance premiums. Those employers are also being helped financially by a federal tax deduction to for providing health insurance options to their employees. And, it should also be noted, not all employers provide such assistance to employees, as in the case of the Benicia Herald newspaper.
Signing up for ACA has been available for a little more than a month. I don’t think we can write off the “young healthy people” just yet. They will sign up. They have until 3/31/2014. If they don’t sign up, then they’ll pay a penalty when they file their income taxes next spring. If you’re a parent of a young person (over 26), and that young person doesn’t have health insurance, I’m pretty sure that you will be urging your son or daughter to look at CoveredCA.com, or healthcare.gov.
Which “recent reports” indicate that “the vast majority of ACA subscribers are being channeled to MediCaid”? Would love to know actual sources of those reports.
Steve I do believe you just tried to pull off a major deception. I hope everyone on this run sees it. Sorry Steve I am not fooled, maybe the Liberals are but I am not.
Shame on you Robert. I’ve know Steve all his life, and I can tell you for a FACT that’s he’s NOT spoofing. You simply can’t believe what he’s saying, but that’s YOUR problem. Where’s your proof he’s lying?
Bob, do you know what your problem is?
Folks most of you Liberals just got spoofed. I hope you do understand that.
Bob, I think you have finally proved that the elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top. Steve honestly pointed out that newspapers are basically a dieing institution. Small town newspapers are even more threatened. Let’s see how much does a subscription to the Herald cost? $5.50 per month. Times 12 months = $66 x 2500? subscribers equals $165000 per year income (obviously these are estimates). Figure rent, news print, delivery costs, salaries for 4-5? employees. In addition there are payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, workers comp, building insurance. Not a lot left to pay the employees, even though they probably all have degrees and deserve much more. But what you and all the know-it-all conservatives assume is that only McDonalds workers, those lazy folks who don’t want to “improve” themselves, make crappy pay. Little secret, I, too received my BA in Journalism from a fabulous Boston college 30 years ago. Even then the pay was lousy, but it was rewarding work. Unfortunately, over the years with the internet and other things it became too difficult to continue in the field because the pay is just not there. Anywhere. Sooo, Bob, I get my writing fix trying to enlighten you to things that you THINK you know about, but clearly have NO idea what you are talking about. That you questioned Steve’s story, sincerity, or truthfulness just exposes you for the really, really shallow person you are. You should be ashamed and you owe Steve an apology.
How does a multimillion dollar company not provide (even modest) cost of living raises to its employee’s?
Company Profile of the Benicia Herald–
More information on Gibson Publishing for the community to contemplate…
This listing is for Gibson Printing & Publishing’s Headquarters Location in Vallejo, CA. The company primarily operates in the Newspaper Publishers industry.
Gibson Printing & Publishing was founded in 1922, and is Privately held.
Gibson Printing & Publishing had $4.5 Million in estimated annual revenue (Estimated data).
Gibson Printing & Publishing employs 51-200 (Show Value) people (Actual data).
Of the 51-200 (Show Value) total Gibson Printing & Publishing employees, 11-50 (Show Value) (Actual data) are located here at the Headquarters Location.
http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/9343529/Gibson-Printing-And-Publishing-in-Vallejo-CA
“How does a multimillion dollar company not provide (even modest) cost of living raises to its employee’s?”
B-H employees have been asking that question for years. And according to our editor, the B-H is the most profitable newspaper in the Gibson Publishing family. Where is all of that money going? It ain’t going to the people who actually PRODUCE the newspaper (writers, editors, designers, advertising reps, secretaries).
I’ve been working for the B-H for eight years and have met our Publisher twice. Once was at a funeral. I can’t think of any other organization where the person “in charge” never shows his face at the business he owns. My editor says he hasn’t spoken to our publisher in more than two years. He doesn’t even have his phone number.
It’s easy to deny your employees raises and health care when you never have to face them.
One thing I’d like to point out: That website Will linked to has out-of-date information. It lists John Moses as Advertising Director (which he never was), and he hasn’t worked here in eight years. Which calls into question all the other information found there.
Now, if we’re done bashing the (admittedly far from ideal) conditions at the newspaper that brought you the above commentary, let’s return to the subject it raises — the health care law. Ed.
Point of information: John D. Moses( is) listed as Advertising Director. The former editor of the Herald was John R. Moses.
Since the information noted above is “out of date”(?) according to the present editor of the Herald, Suggestion: maybe, Mr. Ethier, could have a reporter or even better yet write an editorial updating the information about the Gibson Publishing Company- for the community to consider…. since it was your own disgruntled Sports Editor who brought the subject matter up in the first place!
Not “according to” me, it is out of date. And thanks for your suggestion Will, I know you always put the community’s interests foremost. Ed.
My question.
“How does a multimillion dollar company not provide (even modest) cost of living raises to its employee’s?”
Mr. Guertin’s reply:
“B-H employees have been asking that question for years. And according to our editor, the B-H is the most profitable newspaper in the Gibson Publishing family. Where is all of that money going?”
Good questions. Now since the information I provided is out of date, and you are sure of that, which I don’t doubt. Why not provide your local readership with the insider information ( most profitable newspaper) you have about Gibson Publishing Company…isn’t that the job of a good reporter.
Will,
“Most profitable” does not mean “profitable.” And it is also the job of a good reporter not to make him- or herself the story. You’d know that if you had any qualifications to question our operation or our judgment.
Nonetheless, if you’re convinced that the Herald is making massive profits while starving its employees, I would direct your attention to the excellent work we’ve been doing for years now in covering every aspect of life in this town. What we’ve achieved, and what we continue to achieve, working with very little is nothing short of amazing. For that I credit an incredible staff that includes Steve Guertin, a sports editor with few peers at the local newspaper level.
Now, as I indicated earlier, the subject of this oped is health care. Further commentary will be asked to hew to the requirement of relevance. Ed.
Ed, I concur. Let’s get back to to the point of Steve’s article,which is an example of how the ACA helped him.
As I stated earlier, the author was helped. His tab is being paid by others. Cost shifting. Healthcare costs are going up. If the author is paying less, others are paying more. This is the essence of Obamacare.
His tab would be paid by others anyway in the form of the “free” care he received when he or his wife showed up at an emergency room without actual coverage. Now it’s a smaller tab. Thank you President Obama.
As long as we are getting back to a real discussion of 0h-bummer-Kare, Steven has told his story about the benefits to his family of “Covered California”, in that the collective is helping defray his medical expenses, because of his financial situation.
I would urge everyone to take a look at the flip side of the coin; the broken promises, false claims, misrepresentations and flat our lies made by those promoting this law, as currently written (note a link is provided to Taranto’s piece, which in turn provides numerous supporting links):
From James Taranto How Low Can They Go? –: This morning the White House went on the attack against a cancer patient who is also a victim of ObamaCare. Edie Littlefield Sundby of San Diego
Regarding internal White House discussions: Suppose the deliberations the Journal describes had taken place in a corporate suite rather than a government one and had concerned a commercial rather than a political advertising slogan. In that case, we’d be talking about a criminal conspiracy to defraud consumers.
Regarding WH responsibilities: But what does astonish us about the Obama administration is the relentlessness and aggression of its efforts to blame others and evade political accountability. The tone is set at the top by a president who, at age 52, retains an adolescent’s aversion to adult responsibility.
Regarding WH ‘compassion’: Still, you’d think a political professional would recognize that Edie Sundby’s story calls not for an attack but for a show of compassion, even if one lacks the capacity for the real thing.
Thank you President 0bama
Facts matter.
“Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market. She’ll now have to enroll in a new plan that offers tighter networks of providers as a way to control health care costs and offer lower premiums. Eleven insurers are participating in Covered California and for the first time they won’t be able to deny coverage to Sundby or any other cancer patients.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/04/2881581/wall-street-journal-horror-story-cancer-patient-losing-doctors-wrong/
All these bogus “victims” turn out to not be victims upon closer examination:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/04/bogus-obamacare-victim-converted/
A few other things, with blogs, internet news sites, the Patch, it makes it even more difficult for newspapers to be able to pay their employees a decent wage. Why pay for the news when you can go online and get it for free? CNN fired their entire photography staff because their “viewers” submit all the pictures they can use, for free! Chicago Sun Times did the same thing. Made for a pretty funny front page when compared to the Chicago Tribune last summer when the Blackhawks beat my Bruins in the Stanley Cup. The Times had “stock” photos but nothing from the actual game. Newspapers are probably the most poorly run business because they never figured out how to adapt to the loss of advertisers. But for you to basically accuse someone that they are pulling your leg is just amazing. Especially someone, despite the horrible financial shortcomings still goes in to do the job that would probably not get done otherwise. You righties all assume anyone who needs any kind of help, regardless of what it is, is some lazy, shiftless bum just “taking your hard earned spoils.” I feel bad for you and your buddies. Jeanius said it very well above, I, too, have no problem with helping others who are working hard but just can’t quite get a break. Again, you folks just ooze, “I’ve got mine, screw everyone else.” What is so, so sad is that because of the constant pounding on the poor and working poor, we have turned on each other. Maybe if we cut the frikken subsidies to corporate farmers, and corporations all over the country then maybe we could get back to building bridges and roads and paying our employees a living wage. When CEO pay is 765% higher than his employees something is very very wrong and shaming minimum wage workers saying they are obviously doing something wrong! is just despicable.
All good points, Karen Some people simply aren’t living in the real world. They live in a fantasy world where everyone makes six-figure salaries…….except for the uneducated and lazy. They should spend more time talking to real hard-working Americans who are the backbone of our country but not reaping any of its benefits.
Exactly.
You gotta wonder. If certain folks had to pay for each comment they posted here on the BH, would they still post as much? It seems they only do it because it is free. Ahhh, the internet! It is really quite socialistic.
Karen said: You righties all assume anyone who needs any kind of help, regardless of what it is, is some lazy, shiftless bum just “taking your hard earned spoils.”
Karen, that just plain is not true. That is your misperception based on your lack of understanding of how the political right feels. I wrote a full piece on the subject just recently, but why “is it that when presented with facts you guys always walk around with your fingers in your ears singing, lalalalalalalalal, I can’t HEAR you?
Dennis, all you have to do is look at the comment sections of many conservative posts and writers. Many of the same people who could benefit from some type of assistance have been brainwashed into thinking that we really are a country of “takers.” This is reinforced every day by Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rushbo, Mark Levine, and the rest of the noise machine that just keeps pounding away at everything that’s “wrong” with this country and its people and oh, it’s all that socialist, Marxist, Kenyan’s fault. You all “want your country back.”
Reread the comments above by those who are outraged that Steve is actually a textbook case for what the ACA was supposed to do. Every one of them implies, including our own Bob, “I know everything in the history of the universe,” Livesay, that Steve is just not working hard enough and that the rest of us are paying his way. I just heard on TV that while the House wants to cut food stamps by $39 Billion, they are talking about increasing farm subsidies to farmers that by Department of Agriculture projections will have farm income in 2013 of around $128.2 billion, the highest since 1973, fueled by “record crop production levels” and “high prices for many crops.” Further, crop insurance subsidies already cost taxpayers $9 billion a year, and overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest farmers and agribusinesses. While the wealthiest farmers collect over $1 million a year each in insurance subsidies, and 10,000 get over $100,000, the lowest 80 percent of policy holders collect on average just $5,000 each, according to the group.
The entire Republican party and especially its Tea Party wing are completely disingenuous – if they were truly compassionate and caring for “the little guy” they would look at the corporate subsidies from top to bottom, left to right and cut there first before they start demonizing working class people who can’t catch a break because we’ve made it so easy for the Walmarts of the world to pay slave wages. Since everyone is so outraged about their tax dollars going to pay for people to have healthcare, maybe they should redirect that outrage to the mega-corporations and the politicians, all of them, that coddle these money pigs as the REAL cause of our dreadful economic inequality and imbalance.
Farm subsidies?
Not sure what prompted that divergence from the topic, but at last we have some agreement. The farm subsidies, which were established by FDR in the New Deal, are another example of law of unintended consequences.
Spoofed? A major deception? You’re calling Steve a liar? Really? You want us “Liberals” to respect you? To take you seriously? Really?!?!?!?
Steve I do owe you an apology. I made am error in judgement. I also owe the readers of this comment section an apoliogy also. To Steve and the readers I do apologise for my comments concerning Steve.
Thanks Bob. No hard feelings. I know things can get heated when a debate like this arises. I’m just glad people have the opportunity to express their opinions……whether we agree with them or not. That’s what a free society is all about.
Bottom line: when someone states they are paying less for insurance due to the ACA, that means someone is paying more.
The ACA is raising the cost of health insurance. If you are paying less, that means your neighbor or local merchant is paying more.
If you are not bothered by this basic truth, then good luck to you. Sleep well.
Matter,
Your opinion is duly noted.
How Single Payer Health Care can help ” every” family.
The analysis of how to pay for Single Payer is presented brilliantly and concisely by professor Jack Rasmus (St. Mary’s College).
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has called for a financial tax on Wall Street to pay for a health care system for all citizens…below more news and valuable information for the community and our appointed and elected leader to seriously consider….
A few excerpts to prompt your interest—
A Real Financial Transaction Tax:
” Sanders’ critics have been especially agitated that their own economic models are being used to show that Sanders’ proposals would greatly benefit the vast majority in the U.S. But debating Krugman and his neoliberal colleagues on the grounds of their faulty economic model — a model that failed miserably under Obama to produce a sustained, real economic recovery in the U.S. — is not necessary. Their model has been broken for some time. Some straightforward historical facts and recent comparative studies are all that’s need to show that a real financial transaction tax can generate more revenue than is needed to fund a single-payer type program. Here’s how.”
“Nearly every advanced economy in the world provides a version of single payer health care to its citizens—except the U.S. On the other hand, no country spends as much on health care as the US. The UK spends 9 percent of GDP, Japan about 10 percent, France and Germany 11 percent, for example. The U.S., in contrast, pays 17 percent plus of its GDP on health care. Given that the most recent US GDP is about US$18 trillion a year, 17 percent of US$18 trillion equals just over US$3 trillion a year.”
“If the U.S. spent, like other advanced economies with single payer, about 10 percent of its GDP a year on health care, it would cost US$1.8 trillion instead of US$3 trillion a year. The U.S. would save US$1.2 trillion.”
“Where does that current US$1.2 trillion go? Not for health services for its citizens. It goes to health insurance companies and other “middlemen,” who don’t deliver one iota of health care services. They are the “paper pushers” who skim off US$1.2 trillion a year in profits that average returns of 20 percent a year and more. They are economic parasites, or what economists refer to as “rentier capitalists” who don’t produce anything but suck profits and wages from those who do actually produce something. They then used the US$1.2 trillion a year to buy up each other, expand globally, and deliver record dividend and stock buybacks for their shareholders.”
“In other words, a true financial transactions tax, that is still quite reasonable at tax rates of 0.25 percent to 2.5 percent, can pay for all of a single-payer health care program in the U.S. and still have hundreds of billions left over — US$641 billion to be exact (US$2.41 minus US$1.8 trillion).”
“That US$641 billion residual could then be used to better fund current Medicare programs. It could eliminate the current 20 percent charge for Medicare Part B physicians services and provide totally free Part D prescription drugs for everyone over 65 years. The savings for seniors over 65 years from this, and the tens of thousands of dollars saved every year by working families who now have to pay that amount for private company health insurance, would now be freed up with a single payer system, to be spent on other real goods and services.”
“A financial transaction tax and single payer program would consequently have the added positive effect of creating the greatest boost in real wages and household income, and therefore consumption, in US economic history. More consumer demand would mean more real investment.”
“Yes, there would be less spending by the wealthy speculating in stocks, bonds, derivatives, forex and other financial securities. But so what? If rich and wealthy investors don’t like that, well then let them eat cake — or some other four letter word”
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/neoliberal-economists-against-bernie-sanders-and-common-sense/