mine is increasing a significant amount.

10/7/2013 11:00:26 AM

Quote :

"If you're buying insurance through the NC exchange, do you have any other options besides BCBS?"

there should be 2 or 3 other options now for 2014 (although I think the SHOP market only has BCBS). In general there are, what, 7 providers in NC?

10/7/2013 11:15:09 AM

last I heard there were only 2 providers in the federal exchange for NC. has that changed?

10/7/2013 12:11:45 PM

It looks like FirstCarolinaCare dropped out, so it should be BCBS and Coventry, right? Or did Coventry drop out

10/7/2013 12:31:23 PM

My premiums went up this year and one plan choice was eliminated. I'm sure next year it will be even pricier and they'll probably go to only account type plans.

I really don't know why any person under 35 who doesn't have a chronic condition would be excited about obamacare. Being forced to buy something that will be more expensive because you'll be used to offset the costs of those who do require a lot of care is not a great deal. Healthy young people had no need for this program, it's terrible for them.

10/7/2013 12:31:25 PM

Quote :

"I really don't know why any person under 35 who doesn't have a chronic condition would be excited about obamacare"

because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Quote :

"The veil of ignorance and the original position are concepts that, by other names, had been in use for centuries by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant whose work discussed the concept of the social contract. John Harsanyi helped to formalize the concept in economics.[1][2] The modern usage was developed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.[3][4] It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g., slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society. The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society. As Rawls put it, "...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like".[5] The idea then, is to render moot those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation. For example, in the imaginary society, one might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, the device forces the parties to consider society from the perspective of all members, including the worst-off and best-off members."

although i don't like it because its Republican corporatist privatization garbage, and its only a slightly improved version of the system we already have

10/7/2013 12:33:54 PM

Quote :

"^^ its probably true when your sample is all of your 20- and 30-something healthy friends"

So is this another example of the Baby Boomer generation fucking our generation in the ass?

10/7/2013 4:35:56 PM

Pretty much.

The intergenerational transfer of wealth from the young to the old is pretty astounding.

10/7/2013 4:44:34 PM

its how insurance works and always has

and NC young people are getting double fucked because we refused to expand medicaid so now all of those people are in your insurance pool

10/7/2013 5:07:59 PM

Sort of, only up until now you couldn't be forced into participating in the system, and I wasn't just talking about insurance.

[Edited on October 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

10/7/2013 5:10:07 PM

if you've ever used any kind of healthcare, you've been participating even if you didn't have insurance. the cost of everyone who can't pay is spread among the rates that you pay.

10/7/2013 5:19:23 PM

Yeah, I get that, but in what way does this improve that situation? Instead of eventually being stuck with one inflated bill when they do require medical care younger people will now just get the shaft by being forced to pay for coverage they don't want at a rate that will be higher than what they previously would have paid.

I just don't see how it's an improvement to pay $2000 in premiums for a plan you won't use is somehow better for them than not having insurance and eating the cost on the extremely low chance you do need care when you're 25.

I mean, it's great for the 65 year olds, but shit for the 25 year olds.

[Edited on October 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

10/7/2013 5:25:45 PM

oh, please don't mistake this for me defending ACA.

10/7/2013 5:27:56 PM

Quote :

"I just don't see how it's an improvement to pay $2000 in premiums for a plan you won't use is somehow better for them than not having insurance and eating the cost on the extremely low chance you do need care when you're 25. I mean, it's great for the 65 year olds, but shit for the 25 year olds. "

By making costs more stable and predictable for the people who use them most (old people), it helps care providers plan better. If they can assume they'll get something from practically everyone for providing care, this is a better situation than care providers eating costs for poor people who don't have or can't get coverage otherwise.

Health costs are shared under ANY system, with or without Obamacare, the cost any person pays for health care will ALWAYS be based on every single other person. The individual mandate just makes these costs to care providers more predictable.

The point of healthcare reform isn't, and can't be, to optimize for everyone to pay lower premiums, because this would ultimately mean hospitals providing less service, or hospitals paying their workers less, which I doubt anyone wants. The goal is to balance premium payments with the ability for people to have access to great healthcare.

Not to mention that every human being grows older and gets sicker, all insurance schemes are money transfers, and the average person wouldn't be able to pay for their own healthcare when they get old if it weren't for young people help take care of them (society has literally always depended on the young to care for the elderly, for thousands of years). They're paying into and supporting a system that one day will benefit them greatly, it's not just money lost.

10/7/2013 7:57:33 PM

Sounds similar to Social Security when you put it like that. How is that system projecting to do during your lifetime?

10/7/2013 9:21:41 PM

that's a lot different, actually

10/7/2013 9:40:28 PM

^^
Social Security is fairly well-funded.

Do you have data to suggest otherwise?

10/8/2013 1:46:25 AM

^ Well, they did just start warning people that if the debt ceiling isn't raised is might "affect" the benefits. (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/07/Social-Security-Administration-Debt-ceiling-fight-puts-checks-at-risk/UPI-48371381132800/)

I know it's probably scaremongering and theatrics (like most of this shutdown has been) but I wouldn't call something "well funded" if it's in trouble of failing if the credit limit isn't raised. I can't wait for the next government shutdown after ACA is fully in effect when we start hearing about how "if funding doesn't get passed, your ability to get your dialysis might be affected". More and more parts of our lives are being tied directly to the ability of 536 adult sized children to get along and not have hissy fits when they don't get their way.

10/8/2013 9:08:58 AM

What exactly does it mean that they delayed the employer requirement? This was big on The Daily Show.

I understand they're putting the individual mandate in place, but what does the employer mandate (?) mean?

10/8/2013 9:42:16 AM

The employer mandate is the part of the law that says any employer with 50+ employees is required to offer health insurance benefits to any employees working 30+ hours. It was supposed to go into effect at the beginning of next year, same time as the individual mandate. They delayed it for one year due to businesses asking for more time to get their reporting systems ready to show that they are complying with the law. The thing is, it's shitty policy in the first place due to the relatively small number of large employers that don't already offer health insurance to their workers, and the fact that it incentivises cutting hours.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/obamacares-employer-mandate-shouldnt-be-delayed-it-should-be-repealed/

10/8/2013 10:10:18 AM

it also makes health insurance easier and cheaper for small businesses to purchase and provide by establishing a marketplace and by offering tax credits

10/8/2013 10:16:12 AM

Just got word that my employer is raising the working spouse surcharge from 60 to 100 per month. *sigh* This is in addition to whatever increases I'm going to get when the plans themselves go up for 2014.

10/9/2013 10:00:11 AM

you guys are missing the point of this thread

10/9/2013 10:05:32 AM

I'm not missing the point, there just wasn't another insurance related thread for me to gripe in.

10/9/2013 10:06:47 AM

there is, its titled "Obamacare advice"

10/9/2013 10:18:18 AM