Some DUers use Obamacare sticker shock to hate on "rich" people - anyone who makes more than they do.
They also are either stupid or else quite willing to carry Obama's water to protect him and the Democrats from the failure of Obamacare.
Notice they have a COMBINED INCOME of $80,000. Her former health care insurance is for an INDIVIDUAL policy. The lowest INDIVIDUAL policy will go up to $238.00 a month from $98.00 per month. Her HUSBAND will also have to purchase health care insurance so their total cost will be almost twice that amount. They bash this couple, acting like they will pay $238 a month for both of them.Star Member villager (19,728 posts)
LA Times: Middle class gets Obamacare sticker shock
Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.
These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.
Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation.
"This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people," said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. "There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act."
Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.
Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.
Star Member Lancero (199 posts)
1. 2856 a year...
Out of a total income of 80k a year - So, thats about 3.57% of your yearly income for a years worth of healthcare.
So round it up - 4%. If you can't spare 4% of your income for health care, then you really have a issue with managing your money.Star Member kestrel91316 (48,392 posts)
77. No excuse. They can look at their budget and decide how much they value health insurance over
the frippery they are spending that money on now.Ahh, no. She's paying $62 per month MORE than you are on the same salary assuming she and her husband each make about $40,000.Star Member ScreamingMeemie (62,023 posts)
2. If I can afford $176.19/month on half of what "she and her husband" make, she can do the same.
These people don't realize how ridiculous they sound with this "sticker shock." Try looking for health insurance with a preexisting condition 4 years ago and finding out that it was $!450 a month with a ridiculous deductible. Sorry but that ain't sticker shock, Jennifer darling.
pnwmom (47,971 posts)
19. It's only a surprise to ignorant people
who don't understand that you can't compare apples and oranges. Bare bones or catastrophic policies have always been cheap compared to full coverage.
One of my relatives turned down a job at a small company because of their health coverage. They'd told him it was a great plan. It turns out that their great plan only covered 50% of doctors visits and 50% of hospital costs, with an annual maximum of $100K.SolutionisSolidarity (213 posts)
6. Gee, anti-ACA propaganda from the LA Times.
Having an individual insurance plan was just a rip off prior to the ACA. They could have easily been rescinded for any number of reasons as soon as you got sick or suffered a serious injury, so you were essentially giving money away to an insurer for at best a false sense of security. These people make enough money to afford real insurance. I have no pity for them that the snake oil they were buying is now illegal..BluegrassStateBlues (783 posts)
$80k a year and can't afford a $238 payment = MISMANAGEMENT of moneyYea, sure 120% in one year is quite OK since insurance was already going up some already.leftyohiolib (3,940 posts)
10. their rates would have gone up anyway and by more than that. insurance companies have been jacking
up rates double digits since 9-11. quit yer bitchin
They have no idea what her current plan covers yet they KNOW it had to be crappy.pnwmom (47,971 posts)
23. And this woman is pregnant! She's nuts.
There's no way her cheap old plan covered them, so she's a lot better off -- for $138 more a month she's getting full maternity coverage, in addition to all the other benefits. Plus there will be no annual or lifetime maximum.
What if she needs to spend a month or two in the hospital? What if her baby was born prematurely? Under the old law, that baby would have had a preexisting condition and would have been ineligible for insurance.
I helped a young woman get insurance with maternity benefits last year (because I don't think any fertile woman should have a policy without them) and the few available plans all cost almost $300 a month.
She should be glad that now all the plans have to cover maternity costs in the same way they do other health care expenses.
Maybe she didn't want the extra coverage. Liberals have no problem forcing people to buy something they don't want or need if it increases liberals hold on the government.
Star Member cilla4progress (3,296 posts)
27. This overall story is gaining traction in the press.
We, or you, can ignore it. You can slice and dice anyway you want. You can call me ignorant. You can say I'm a spoiled upper middle classer. Whatevs. Fact remains, and it better start getting replied to transparently (sorely missing before the fact) and / or Dems are going to pay at the polls in 2014.