More Obamacare fuckups

[Whirlin]

That's hilarious. So some people will receive "credits" but won't actually be able to use them?

Just got back, and missed this post. But sorry, my original explanation was unclear. My point was that it's not a binary obtain 2k/yr if you make 10k, but it's more of a curve of obtaining applicability at 10k, but then gradually obtaining less and less as you make more. So if you made 15k, you may only get a 1.5k credit, 20k would get you a 1k credit, etc. Rather than just If you make 10-25k, you get a 2k credit.

I just searched for minimum wage and this was one of the websites that came up: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...age-chart.aspx

Going by that the most common wage is 7.25 an hour. Working 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year this nets a gross income of 15080.

Arguably, if you were working 40 hours a week at a single location at a company of over 50 people, that would make you eligible for health insurance provided through the company you work for, which would then have two payers towards premiums. The offering company would receive incentives, either in the form of credits or deductions for offering insurance insurance... but I don't know enough about how the final verbiage of those was written.

[Tgo01]

Arguably, if you were working 40 hours a week at a single location at a company of over 50 people, that would make you eligible for health insurance provided through the company you work for, which would then have two payers towards premiums. The offering company would receive incentives, either in the form of credits or deductions for offering insurance insurance... but I don't know enough about how the final verbiage of those was written.

Or the company opts to just pay the fine, or the company cuts workers back to 32 hours a week to avoid providing health insurance, or the company offers "affordable" healthcare that the employee can't afford so the employee opts to not buy insurance and pays the fine themselves.

[Jarvan]

If you're only making 10k per year, I think you have a lot more concerns than just that!

I thought most of the values that were being thrown around were just for illustrative purposes for how the law works. If those are the actual values for the credits/etc, then yes, that would not be good. But hey, at least preventative care is taken care of with that premium?


Additionally, there is always the option of accepting the penalty instead of paying the premiums and obtaining the health insurance. If the penalty is only $500, it would be a more viable option than the premium + credit.

Penalty is 75% or a % of income, whichever is higher. Forget the percent. It increases up to 495$ at 2016 I think.

[Bryft]

Pour some tussin on it.

[Warriorbird]

http://cell.phoneprovidersguide.com/24521-zipcode-cell-phone-providers.html

One thing I had to do to boost my signal in my home was to get AT&T to give me a "micro-cell" which you connect to your Internet and it gives you a mini-tower at a place where you don't normally get good reception.

It worked for a while, using the cheaper providers. Eventually with wine festivals and such we ended up getting a serious amount of dropped calls.

[Jarvan]

It worked for a while, using the cheaper providers. Eventually with wine festivals and such we ended up getting a serious amount of dropped calls.

Market it as "Self Reflection Time". Problem solved.

[Jarvan]

Attempt 20 to create an account...

Create a Marketplace account

Important: Your account couldnt be created at this time. The system is unavailable.

[Latrinsorm]

The cheapest plan I saw was almost 200 dollars a month that covered 60% of healthcare costs and a 30 dollar doctor visit copay with an almost 6,000 dollar deductible. Who are these plans helping exactly?

That would be an improvement on my plan, unless generic prescriptions were $30 a piece too. Even then it would be close.

They really should clarify this more, let me see if I can help.

Your problem is false dichotomy. You read "this can help protect you from high costs" to mean "this will make those costs go to $0", and when it doesn't you are outraged. At $200 a month, you could have insurance for 59 months and still be ahead with a $12,000 price reduction, and this is assuming you use your insurance for absolutely nothing else: no doctor visits, no prescriptions, no nothing.

One more thing I want to add: is it a good thing to do to spam the website when you know full well it's having load issues? Is it a patriotic thing?

[Shaps]

One more thing I want to add: is it a good thing to do to spam the website when you know full well it's having load issues? Is it a patriotic thing?

Is it patriotic that the Government has used tax payer funds for the past 3 years to set up a website, and couldn't correctly? Oh.. it's also a Canadian company that designed it.

Could have paid a 17 year old highschooler 50k and he'd had it running better.

[Tgo01]

Your problem is false dichotomy. You read "this can help protect you from high costs" to mean "this will make those costs go to $0"

Nope. When you're paying 2400 dollars a year for a plan with a 6000 dollar deductible then they have the nerve to say "OMG! A broken leg could run you 7500 dollars! THIS WILL HELP!" I think I am more than justified to call them out on their bullshit.

One more thing I want to add: is it a good thing to do to spam the website when you know full well it's having load issues? Is it a patriotic thing?

More patriotic than apple pie.