Has Anyone Benefited from Obamacare?

a reply to: xuenchen

Have you read any of the posters who were denied insurance due to preexisting conditions stories on this thread at all? Here's the skinny on preexisting conditions pre-ACA. A lot of people were "uninsurable". In some cases, however, one could get insurance through employment and have, depending on their insurance status before employment, simply a hold on coverage for treatments of those preexisting conditions for a term. If one was able to obtain insurance through employment and had continuous health coverage up til that point, the hold on treatment for those preexisting conditions was 6 months. If one went without coverage before obtaining that insurance through employment, the hold on treatment of those conditions was 1 year. That's if they'd actually insure you. For some, like me, I got laughed at routinely by life and health insurance salesmen. I was "uninsurable" on both counts due to heart defect, bleeding disorders, reproductive congenital defects, stroke and seizure history , and prolific autoimmune disease. LOL If what is wrong with you is just too costly to profit on, they won't touch you with a 10 ft pole. I had 9 specialists. They wanted nothing to do with me.

I had a friend die of having a "preexisting condition" of Hepatitis. He did go into a hospital when the infection started and they just stabilized him--no more, no less. His liver eventually failed. The toddler daughter of a friend died from having a preexisting condition of brain cancer though her treatments were in part funded by charitable organizations. People died because they couldn't get coverage or the treatment they needed or, if they survived, went into bankruptcy getting what they needed done if they had a little capital to work with.

In terms of the VA benefits, you can "think" all you want or you can read what F4 said about his VA medical benefits. One is direct experience with them and the other is supposition. Which one do you think is more valid?

a reply to: Daughter2

too bad the ACA isn't "universal healthcare"

it's "everyone has to buy this thing they can't afford, and can't use. and if you refuse, we'll just take your money, in increasing amounts, until you're destitute."

i'm glad it helped you, but you need to look beyond yourself. it NOT working for people isn't a conspiracy to make, or see it fail...it's simply the facts of the matter...

a reply to: antoinemarionette

i'd like to preface this by saying that i am glad you were able to get the surgery you needed...i'm not going to ask what it was, because that's none of my business..

that being said, your attitude is typical of the "pro-ACA" crowd.. "it helped me, so it's swell, and it's gonna be the best thing ever, once the bugs are worked out"...of course, you're better than most, as you choose to acknowledge that there ARE problems with it, however minor you may think they are...

the problem is that the people who benefit from it, very rarely(if ever) think about the people who are paying for what they're getting...it's not "free"...somebody had to pay for it....who is that? it's the rest of us.. this entire scam RELIES upon a large percentage of the enrolled, to be young, and healthy, and to not use the plans.....which shouldn't be a problem, because they won't be able to afford to use them anyway....

the system relies on people signing away their today, to fund someone else's tomorrow...

it's a lot like the social security system.....which is also disastrously broken, and has been for quite sometime now....the big difference between this and that though, is that with SS, you're guaranteed that once you hit a certain age, you can collect, and you'll be ok....with this, you keep paying, and paying, and paying, and receive little to no return on the investment...

someone earlier said they didn't understand why some people hate it, and some love it, or something to that effect....the simplest way to look at it is that the people who aren't paying for it, love it....the people who ARE paying for it, hate it....i know it's oversimplified to a degree, but it's still quite accurate. people love free stuff...there can be no argument on this..

a reply to: Staroth

I thought that's what it was for also, income contingent!?!?

Very puzzling why some seem to fall through the cracks when it comes to health and care in the USA. Capitalism has it's advantages but it falls short when life and the need for healthcare are mixed in with its functioning. The strongest country in the world needs to be based on its residence and the well being of them: healthcare, education and financial stability should be top of list!
It took me a long time to realize not all thieves break into houses and rob banks and not all murderers kill with guns or knives wearing masks. These people(corporations) sometimes find themselves in positions of power and use 'influence' to carry out these horrible acts. Some don't even realize they are doing it, blinded by some other force or influence. It is up to us to make sure they are recognized and eliminated so this cycle of money/power over life comes to an end, before it ends us. It is just a matter of time now to see who wins. . .

a reply to: Daedalus

And that is precisely what is done in other countries that utilizes taxes in order to pay for a national health care. Having a healthy population with medical care actually is a social benefit for everyone within a country. A lack of medical care, for many, is the total difference between whether they can work (be productive) or not. In the latter case, the disabled may still become a "drain" on society's pocketbook because they cannot be productive. And trust me, the biggest issue that many people have who are disabled, whether permanently or temporarily, is feeling that lack of productivity. I've been fully disabled for over a year now. I can't even take out my own trash or go grocery shopping on my own because I'm bound to hurt myself and cause a myriad of serious issues. I go nuts on a daily basis because I feel so unproductive. Oddly enough, ATS helps me with that because, since I'm stuck being a brain, I try to dig for things now and then for people here, lol.

It's a choice of what society would prefer--the possibility that some who are unable to work to finally be able to work again or to basically pay for their existence where they are stuck doing nothing and in permanent poverty. Would you rather a significant portion of your society to have the opportunity to get their conditions under control so they can earn money and become tax revenue participants and perhaps pay for their insurance? Or would you prefer us to become eternal leeches upon society until the day we die? I'd prefer the former. I look forward to becoming productive again and this insurance is the ONLY governmental assistance that I've received in this time of disability.

The social security system is actually completely different. Every job that we have (unless one is paid illegally under the table) has a portion of the income removed from it as a contribution to one's future social security. The last time I got a notice about mine, I'd earned enough to receive over $1500 a month in social security at age 30 (I started working at 11--shhh, don't tell!). Like social security, when we all reach age 65, we will be shifted to Medicare so we'll not be paying for our entire lives. At age 65, you'll be eligible for Medicare A enrollment. You can choose to pay a small monthly benefit to supplement Medicare A with Medicare B/C.

So, at age 65, you will (hopefully since you paid into both) receive both social security and medicare.

Page 5: www.socialsecurity.gov...

originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
Whats the count now...
6 positives (F4 guy shouldn't count as he is a Vet

X

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't count since I'm a vet, huh? I guess I've wasted a lot of time and energy fighting the festering bitterness that over 30 years in a wheelchair can engender. I should have figured out that to some people with souls like fetid toxic Superfund cleanup sites, we vets don't count. We, according to them should be happy we get free prostheses and free care for the circulatory problems those wooden and metal substitutes for the limbs that were shot off, blown off, or otherwise traumatically amputated cause. Why, I even get a free wheelchair to get pushed around in. What I couldn't get, until the AClA, because disabled vets are considered to be persons with a pre-existing condition, was coverage for anything other than the service connected injuries. I guess the ACA finally made us "count" and, believe me, that is a benefit.
There are 3.6 million vets with service connected disabilities in the US, and not only do we count, we vote. And we will remember in the voting booth who finally made it possible for us to get the same coverage as everyone else in the country, and who, out of an abiding and cancerous hatred of one man, wants to take it away.

a reply to: F4guy

I just want you to know that I'm glad this change for you, too, and am grateful for you sharing what is obviously a misconception about VA benefits. You aren't the first vet I've seen making remarks about how bad they've become and it makes me really angry. All that talk about how the public needs to "support the troops"--it's total hypocrisy between what they say and what they do. You all deserve better than this. If one poster can make you feel bitter, then let another poster seeing you and the plight of veterans give you comfort that not all of us are blind to it.

It's times like this where I wish I was a god so I could perform a miracle for you. I really do. Hang in there.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I didn't mean to complain about the VA system as a whole. The actual providers (docs, nurses, physical therapists, prosthetic techs, etc.) are by and large great. The administrators and headquarters, however, make the apparatchiks of the Soviet bureaucracy look like marvels of personal caring. And some facilities are better than others. When I was doing my post-doc at Fermilab, I dealt with Chicago - a nightmare. Here in Florida, they are much better, both in Ft. Myers and St. Pete/Tampa.

a reply to: F4guy

jesus christ man, you took it the wrong way.....read a bit, willya?

his implication was that you shouldn't matter, because he was under the mistaken impression that EVERY vet receives "free" medical services through the VA.....not "you don't matter because you're a baby-killing scumbag"

two VERY different things, man...

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
And that is precisely what is done in other countries that utilizes taxes in order to pay for a national health care.

no...no, it's not....

with a "NHS" system, like in the UK, for example, people pay a tax...and anyone can go see a doctor, and whatever....or at least this is how it works on paper.....there's no "you hafta spend "X" number of dollars, out of pocket, before we'll contribute", or "you're gonna pay more than this bloke...because...well, just because", or any of that...NHS is NOT private insurance...

what we have is mandatory purchase of private insurance, that is unaffordable for a lot of people, and when it IS affordable, is unusable, because the deductible is so idiotically high, that most can't afford to use it....meanwhile, people who meet certain criteria, either get a completely free ride, or pay WAY less than everyone else..and this is only possible, because others are supplying the funding for it.

so in short, the difference is that "NHS" is service for all, and ACA, is service for some...even though you're paying, in theory, for that service..


i'm sorry to hear about your disability, and i hope it is something that is either manageable, or "curable", with the correct course of treatment. however, i'm not sure why you're talking about the disability benefit system, as it is a completely unrelated system, and is nothing even remotely like the ACA..

The social security system is actually completely different. Every job that we have (unless one is paid illegally under the table) has a portion of the income removed from it as a contribution to one's future social security. The last time I got a notice about mine, I'd earned enough to receive over $1500 a month in social security at age 30 (I started working at 11--shhh, don't tell!). Like social security, when we all reach age 65, we will be shifted to Medicare so we'll not be paying for our entire lives. At age 65, you'll be eligible for Medicare A enrollment. You can choose to pay a small monthly benefit to supplement Medicare A with Medicare B/C.

that's kinda what i said.....with SS, you're guaranteed to be able to collect on the money you've been paying into it through the years...with the ACA, you still hafta pay the money, but there's a very real possibility that you will get little to no return on it.

a reply to: Daedalus

I think that sums up the best description of why this will never work. It is unfair to all, either it's free on one end or it's way over priced on the other.
IT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR ALL, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION!
I want a system that I pay as much as Bill Gates and if he elects to not use it or hire private physicians, that is his choice. If you qualify for help due to unemployment, low income or disability, it is handled case to case. Other then that it is divided evenly among all of our citizens.
Until that happens people will use and abuse this just like any other tax.

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
And that is precisely what is done in other countries that utilizes taxes in order to pay for a national health care.

what we have is mandatory purchase of private insurance, that is unaffordable for a lot of people, and when it IS affordable, is unusable, because the deductible is so idiotically high, that most can't afford to use it....meanwhile, people who meet certain criteria, either get a completely free ride, or pay WAY less than everyone else..and this is only possible, because others are supplying the funding for it.

Yep, that is exactly what we ended up with after the idea of nationalized health insurance went down the drain thanks to politicians and lobbyists resurrecting the old specter of Communism.

so in short, the difference is that "NHS" is service for all, and ACA, is service for some...even though you're paying, in theory, for that service..

Then perhaps Americans should have really decided what they wanted their Congress to do in order to correct our healthcare system.

i'm sorry to hear about your disability, and i hope it is something that is either manageable, or "curable", with the correct course of treatment. however, i'm not sure why you're talking about the disability benefit system, as it is a completely unrelated system, and is nothing even remotely like the ACA..

Thank you. It's manageable/correctable depending on which one lol but not curable--at least not without a stem cell transplant, lol. If you're referring to my discussion of what one would prefer me to be a leech upon--either get medical care and potentially become a tax paying citizen also "paying in" or end up on disability, in either case, it'll be your tax dollars at work to fund my existence. My point is that with the ACA, the odds of me becoming a tax paying individual are infinitely higher as those things prohibiting me from working are largely correctable. There is a relationship between the ACA and SSDI. Without the ACA, people who are sick and in need of medical care but are not getting it will eventually become SSDI recipients. With treatment, they might not and actually become tax participants in this country. It's that simple.

that's kinda what i said.....with SS, you're guaranteed to be able to collect on the money you've been paying into it through the years...with the ACA, you still hafta pay the money, but there's a very real possibility that you will get little to no return on it.

Yet, at age 65, you'll also no longer be paying into the ACA because you'll be receiving Medicare. At 65, that is when we all become even.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Yep, that is exactly what we ended up with after the idea of nationalized health insurance went down the drain thanks to politicians and lobbyists resurrecting the old specter of Communism.

ok, so if you're agreeing with me that this is what we have in the ACA, then why did you say it was something else?

Then perhaps Americans should have really decided what they wanted their Congress to do in order to correct our healthcare system.

they did. they want free stuff...and that's what the president, and the government promised them...and then they pulled their usual bait and switch BS, and now we have this idiotic piece of crap in place...

but since it's being touted as the greatest thing since the babyjesus, the people who point out that it's a mess, and really quite awful, are shouted down, and called "rasist", and are portrayed as EVIL people, with an agenda, by people like Harry Reid...

Thank you. It's manageable/correctable depending on which one lol but not curable--at least not without a stem cell transplant, lol. If you're referring to my discussion of what one would prefer me to be a leech upon--either get medical care and potentially become a tax paying citizen also "paying in" or end up on disability, in either case, it'll be your tax dollars at work to fund my existence. My point is that with the ACA, the odds of me becoming a tax paying individual are infinitely higher as those things prohibiting me from working are largely correctable. There is a relationship between the ACA and SSDI. Without the ACA, people who are sick and in need of medical care but are not getting it will eventually become SSDI recipients. With treatment, they might not and actually become tax participants in this country. It's that simple.

i'm glad for that...no one should have to suffer needlessly...unless they're truly awful, and deserve it, lol

as to the rest, ideally, i'd prefer NOBODY be a "leach"...however, i do recognize that true disability DOES exist, and it's only right to try and help your fellow citizen...which is why SSDI is a good thing. what's bad is when people pull some magic BS, and exploit loopholes, and fake stuff, so they can collect....they pretend to be truly disabled, because they either can't find work, or don't feel like working, and then they collect money that could be going to people who actually NEED it.....if you are truly f**ked, to the point where you absolutely cannot work, i don't mind helping to shoulder the burden of funding your life...that's only the right thing to do.

as i see it, the ACA, and SSDI are nothing alike. SSDI(on paper) helps people who cannot help themselves....the ACA is a blank check made out to the insurance industry, and federal government, with "we the people", as the endorsing party..

Yet, at age 65, you'll also no longer be paying into the ACA because you'll be receiving Medicare. At 65, that is when we all become even.

how do you reckon?

if i have a job, and i'm made to buy insurance, and the deductible is so high, i can't make use of the policy i'm paying for....and at the same time, i'm paying into SS, and medicare......i'm basically paying TWICE for medical services....once for a policy i'm forced to buy now, that i can't use, and once for something i can't get access to for a very long time.....how does that make us equal?

I'm retired and fortunately can get insurance through my former employer. I have to pay for it, but can get it. Due to Obamacare, this year my cost went up significantly. It now consumes fully one third of my retirement income.
To Daughter2, you stated that Obamacare would save the middle class. I wish you were right, but what it will truly do is put the final nail in the coffin on the middle class. "They", whoever they are, are harvesting the middle class for their own bank accounts and this is just one more way of doing it.

a reply to: AnteBellum

Me, well no, as usual, my husband a retired marine and both of us under government subsided Tricare Humana will be fighting in the next two years to keep our benefits, because Obama and his I don't care bill believe that we make too much money on my husbands retirement and need to pay more for insurance.

My son, well no, he is no benefiting either, he considered under the national standard guideline of poverty, can not even qualify for anything because he doesn't make enough, so, soo much for Obama to help the poor.

a reply to: AnteBellum

I'm still waiting for my insurance to kick in, filed online for it 3/10/14. It was then transferred over to medi-cal and I was not given the option to pay for non medi-cal insurance out of pocket. Still waiting on medi-cal to mail the documents they've been promising will come, since April.

I sent a letter to the White House and 2 weeks later got a call from a high level person at California HHS department, that did absolutely nothing. This thread has given me the motivation to write the White House again. They do respond when you reach out to them.

It really breaks my heart to hear some of the troubles many of you are having with this. And now those that it even helped hurts just as much, due to the cost many others must sacrifice for the few who it helps. Most everyone is suffering financially right now. Whether it's from this system or not doesn't matter anymore, this was not the right time to put more pressure on those about to go under, trying desperately to stay afloat.
I am truly glad this bill/law helped some of you but I cannot condone the misery of thousands, at the benefit of the few. I am fully against this and will do whatever asked of me to try and get rid of it. We need a system that is equal and fair to ALL, not just a majority or minority. Until that happens I feel my stance on this will leave me with an even emptier feeling of what I thought being an american was about. My discontent for this country has grown so much in the past 20 years I almost am ashamed to raise my children here now. Children which will hopefully grow to change what america has become, back to what america was created for.

Good luck and good health to all, meaning those that have health insurance, those that can use it properly and those that can afford it!

Question? I thought that all Americans were supposed to benefit from the ACA. I don't call it Obama Care because he did not come up with it. It is just a rehash of previous legislation. With that being said, I currently have employer sponsored health insurance in which I have to pay roughly $550.00 a month for. And my deductible is $3000.00 and out of pocket is $3000.00 and this is per person. My total for the family is $6000.00 ded. and $6000.00 out of pocket. So by doing the math, using the insurance could and has cost in upwards of $18000.00 or 25% of my salary. The insurance I have is fairly good, so I am not sure how anyone can afford what the government is offering especially if a person is making minimum wage. I know it is tough for me to afford the cost associated with my insurance due to my medical condition and a family members condition. This caused me to file bankruptcy and I am still dealing with that today. I truly feel for the people out there who need medical care but have to choose between that and keeping a roof over there heads. I know there are people out there that will abuse the system no matter what kind of system it is, but something better needs to be done to where medical care is affordable to everyone. I don't have the answer but i am pretty sure the ACA is not the way to go. I agree that the ACA has helped some people but they seem to be few and far between. I know that there are many people like me that have these same cost and are thinking when will this become better for not only me but everyone else in this country?????? By the way my employer just raised my monthly rate. Thank you Affordable Care Act!!!

here's another kicker....

as some of you may know, i've been looking for a job for a while.....finally got an interview.

during the interview, it was explained to me that IF i get the job, i'd be hired as a part time employee....the reason stated for this is because they're required by law, to only hire part-timers, because of the ACA....i think everyone in here knows that's not true.

it's a cost-saving measure, that the company came up with...hire part-timers, so you don't have to provide benefits.....what really bothered me though is that the company seems to be telling people that it's the law, and they're not fact-checking it?

so if i get this job, not only will i be saddled with crummy pay, but if i don't qualify for expanded medicaid, i'll end up having to spend most of my money on a policy i'll never be able to use, just so i have have the privilege of not having the government swoop in, and take ALL of it....

wonderful plan, congress...thanks for that...

i feel like the main problem with the ACA is exactly the reason that, on the flip side it has greatly helped people. pre-existing conditions. I know this is going to be touchy so first off I want to say that I that I think it is fantastic that people who otherwise couldn't get insurance now can, however i do not think it is at all fair that people who do not go to the doctor (at all ever in my life even when i was a kid because my dad does not believe in doctors) are basically being told they HAVE to have it or there will be a penalty......hmmmmm in my state KANSAS for me to get the lowest (bronze) level plan just for me by myself is 164 dollars a month. i dont know about you, but i dont have 2000 dollars a year to just blow on nothing. i was made part time at my job (i feel that many at my job were in order for my employer not to have to cover us). i would much rather pay the 300 dollar penalty i had to pay this year than pay 2000 for something i would not use even if stricken by some horrible disease. making insurance companies cover people with pre existing conditions at reasonable rates is an admiral goal but i dont think it should be accomplished by forcing everyone to sign up in order to ensure there is enough healthy people to offset the sick amd ensure continuing profits for insurers.