Actual costs vary depending on which of the possible health care choices you select. I belong to an HMO (Kaiser Permanente) which is one of the least expensive choices (If not the least expensive choice) that IBM offers in Northern California. Nancy did not mention her current choice of insurance nor the choice she plans to obtain through the exchange, so she may have apples and I oranges. For this reason, I think the information I provided is more meaningful. I also provided the URL so any who want to investigate the cost of options being provided by the California exchanges can investigate the costs and details of the coverages being provided on their own. Doing so will provide costs estimates more meaningful than any numbers I might report.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., dan finn <dfinn1@...> wrote:
So based on your post of ACA costing 3X IBM, bottom line is that you will pay $4K+ per month for ACA? Is that what you are alleging? Sorry but when responding to a post that gives numbers it is always useful to provide numbers because multipliers can be confusing when taken out of context. Thanks.
"zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:
Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.
I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.
Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.
The url for the estimator, by the way, is
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" <nancygoodenough@> wrote:
I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:
The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.??I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.?? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.?? Members of my family?? live under Medicaid and?? others like myself live under Medicare.?? But you seem to have a dosed??mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care??programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.?? Who will prevail the ACA??supporters or those who oppose..?? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA??is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care??insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.?? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder??but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA??as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare??doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA??you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA??has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.?? My Medicare??doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon??a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA??is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ??> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >
|
