www.incontinentsupport.org

So as a college student and a broke one at that is shocks me that high prices that the health care exchange whats. The hole website is crap. Because you apply for price quotes without then even knowing anything about you. Then the companies call you like fifty times to go over what they offer. Mind you the freaking website tells you that if you fill out "X" information then you will be transferred to a price website for that companies... I have been called by over ten different places, from 3 different states just from filling out one form for one insurance group.

The messed up thing is that the ACA was said to make things cheaper and eliminate disqualification for pre-existing conditions. The last time tryed to apply for insincere was with Florida blue, who for year I was insured through as part of a plain offered by my job..

Now they don't ever look at you medical record but want so much that it is crazy. Like the cheapest I could get had either a $2,500 deductible for $150 a month with a 30% copay or a $5,000 deductible for $89 a month for a 20% copay. neither I can afford.

It is crazy that when I was working I had florida blue for $150 no deductible after 60 days and only a $20 copay for just about every non emergence thing. and it was only $150 for Er stuff and a $45 a night copay if and when I had to stay in the hospital.

The ACA makes is near impostable to do for someone like me.

_________________
Life is like a camera
Focus of what is important
Capture the good times
Develop from the negatives
Take another shot!

Believe it or not, but it did make things cheaper. Insurance plans are well over $1000 less than what was predicted before the ACA was enacted. And yeah, prices were just that out of control before. Unfortunately Obama's vision for the ACA included tax breaks for the middle class and greatly expanded medicare for the poor which did not make it. We can thank the GOP (Generally Opposed Party) for this part though as they saw in their own wisdom to strike down those parts just so they could say it wasn't working. And look, they were still wrong anyways. lol.

The Republican replacement for the ACA has just been unveiled. We should all be curious about its details as it moves through congress.

We actually already have a fair number of details. Most people are calling Obamacare lite since it's really close to the same thing we already have, but just stripped down.

I did hear a really good explanation of it on NPP this morning too. One analyst actually called it Obamacare 0.5 since all it does is strip benefits and tax breaks for the poor and elderly while giving a small tax break for the middle class.

This new plan would actually increase a 50 year old's premium by $10,000 within just a few years. Totally not worth it, and I really hope it gets stuck down.

that's what happens when you let democrats run things. Prices skyrocket and efficiency evaporates. I don't have a ton of faith in Trump but I'm hopeful his solution to this broken mess ACA will see some improvements.

sorry, that's patently false. Premiums have demonstrably skyrocketed under the ACA.

There are different ways of measuring these things. In absolute terms, aggregate premiums are certainly more expensive than they were in 2010. But premiums were always going to increase over 2010 rates. The idea behind the ACA is that premiums were intended to increase at slower rates than they would have without the ACA. This might be true for an individual policy holder, and it might be false. It depends on who you are, where you are, your age, if your policy is subsidized, etc. Different folks will have different responses to their experiences under the ACA. The law was imperfect. It would have been better with the public option, but the other side nixed that idea. Personally, I have benefitted enormously from the Medicaid expansion, as have something like ten million other people. Because of the ACA, I was able to see a urologist and obtain a proper diagnosis. Personally, I would support further expansions of Medicaid until it resembles the National Health Service in the United Kingdom.

The macroeconomic context of the ACA is not even remotely debatable. See the attached chart published some years ago by National Geographic. If you want lower healthcare costs and better health outcomes, you should support some kind of national health system. For example, members of this forum who have access to NHS in the U.K. regularly marvel at the nonsense that Americans are forced to tolerate.

The CBO disagrees with you. And I didn't say prices went down. Yes they have gone way up, except without the ACA, prices would have gone up much much more. The ACA absolutely did help curb the rising price of health care. This is a fact that has been backed up and proven many times over, and trying to say it hasn't is either outright denial or you've fallen for a big lie.

The ACA worked out for my husband and me, but only after the tax credit patch was implemented. We're self-employed, and before the ACA, our monthly health insurance premiums were slightly over twice the amount of the monthly mortgage payments on our house. Plus, we had a fairly high deductible, co-pays, and the plan only paid 80% up to a yearly stop-loss of $10K. Our premiums increased slightly under the ACA, but then reduced substantially to a realistic amount with the tax credits. The only lasting problem I had with the ACA is that two of the meds I took to manage my diabetes were not covered under my plan. They became cost-prohibitive and I needed to switch to other meds that didn't seem to work as well. All of it is moot now that I'm on Medicare. That's the next to go down, and I'm not laughing.

W.