Am I correct about this?

I'm attempting to explain The affordable care act to myself.
So as I see it the important number was eleven. Eleven million people that in the US could not afford health insurance. That eleven million included the homeless and the working poor. The idea was that the entire working class including the working poor whom this would benefit would pay a little bit more in taxes from each pay check in order to pay for whatever medical treatments the eleven million needed. It was thought that myself and the other workers would only have to pay 10-20 more dollars a week. That low amount was calculated by assuming how much medical care those eleven million people would need. The problem, the reason its not working is because that assumption was very wrong and those eleven million people are much more unhealthy than anyone thought. Instead of a low amount coming from each workers paycheck a rather large amount became the norm.

ATS, what about what I just wrote is incorrect?
Please try not to get bogged down in moral debate on weather or not a person should be forced to pay for someone else's medical care. I do not mind paying for someone else to get healthy as long as it doesn't make my life harder. 10-20 dollars a week is fine with me I would pay that gladly. 100 dollars more a week and now I'm less healthy because I can't eat the healthy foods I want and I am not ok with that. So keep this about the logistics of the ACA please.

My wife just received a "modest" 3% increase in her health care premiums.
That goes with the increases the last couple of years.

Let's put it this way. The president said every family would have their costs reduced by $2500.
He either lied to the American people or was completely clueless what he was talking about.

Take your pick.

a reply to: Bluntone22

He either lied to the American people or was completely clueless what he was talking about.

How about both?

It is cheaper for me to pay out of pocket, than it is to pay premiums every month for Obamacare.

Among HealthCare.gov states, the highest premium hikes is a stunning 116 percent increase in Arizona, where a 27-year-old who did not qualify for financial aid would go from paying an average of $196 per month for his "benchmark" plan this year up to $422 per month for the same type of plan next year. The lowest increase is a 2 percent hike in New Hampshire, where the benchmark plan for a 27-year-old would go from $215 per month to $217.

But most other HealthCare.gov states are seeing double-digit price hikes in premiums for their benchmark Obamacare plans, which, like all other individual plans, go on sale Nov. 1 for 2017 coverage

I don't think they should have called it the Affordable care act. That is deceiving. They should change the name to the unaffordable care act now.

a reply to: DAVID64

Ordinarily that would be so, but in the event you need some kind of treatment for a serious condition you can't go without coverage. I just tore my rotator cuff and needed surgery which so far has resulted in over $25,000 of medical bills. I'm stuck with something like 15-20% of that out of pocket but I'm just thankful I don't have to pay it all.

Don't think much of Obamacare though, even though I'm not on it, my employer provides mine, I just wish I could go back to the kind of coverage I had in the mid '80s.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I was working in case management at the time of the transition, so I was at the heart of the fiasco.

I tried to warn folk here at ATS that the program was unsustainable and was a disaster waiting to happen.

You did not have to be a rocket scientist to see the flaws. I like to use this example:
Take a half full pot of stew. Let us say it has 100 cups in it right now. Now have 10 people taking just one cup out of it every day. Now have 10 people refilling the pot with a half of a cup every day. How long will it take before the stew is gone and pot is empty?

This pretty much sums up the ACA. The bigger problem is that some days the 10 people are taking more than just one cup, and some days no stew is going into the pot.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Part of what happened to it is that states implemented it very differently. Here in Texas, the governor refused to accept government money and dragged his heels and insurance companies just loaded up on profits. Part-time workers can't afford any of the plans (the lowest of them that I looked at costs over $300/month.)

The situation is different in California.