Meanwhile back at the ranch,

[FuriousXGeorge]

This is where we differ, I can't help but feel that IF the economy was the first priority, the political capital would have followed.

The tea party tards were already up his ass over the stimulus and other early measures. There was not going to be another shot. In the long term a healthy populous is good for the economy. Single payer would be even better, employers should not have to worry about this at all.

[IronEagle]

I guess I've always been resigned to being screwed over by health insurance companies.

Thankfully, I've been healthy for the most part and have never required much of a payout from my insurer. I've always felt that when it came time to pay out my insurer would try to find a way to avoid doing so.

The one issue I have had (vision related) is not covered by my insurance and I pay for that care completely out of pocket. I need special contact lenses and the cost of the doctor and lenses is more than $1k per year for that.

[Eagle Road]

The tea party tards were already up his ass over the stimulus and other early measures. There was not going to be another shot. In the long term a healthy populous is good for the economy. Single payer would be even better, employers should not have to worry about this at all.

So, put yourself in my shoes, the guy that has ALWAYS paid his own way, and paid his HC in full, is the guy that loses hi/her policy? Does that seem right to you? The people like myself that have always paid and had HC are not the ones that were causing the system to break down.

I have no problem helping someone else out that is less fortunate, but does that mean I should be penalized?

[The Ref]

I realize that, but with you being in HC, I would think that if you looked at it you would see that as a segment, the small business owner is being impacted by this law more so than any other group.

And I don't care who's idea it was, I don't like being lied to, as of RIGHT NOW,

I CAN'T keep my current policy,
I CAN'T keep my current doctor,
I CAN'T get the same coverage that I now have,
I CAN'T see where I am going to save any money, in fact, it looks as if my cost will DOUBLE for as close to my old deductible and policy as I can get.

This depends on your state. In California rates for the self employed are significantly lower with the ACA. Plus, people can actually qualify. Before ACA, if you had a preexisting condition, you're out. Can't get insurance at all or so expensive it's as if you can't get it. Period! No chance you can be an entrepreneur and start your own business or even change jobs. It's called JOB-LOCK. Job Lock is now over!!!

Far more people are benefitting from the ACA than hurt by it. And if an employer has 50 or more full time employees and ISN'T offering health insurance for them? Then that employer isn't going to keep good employees and his business will likely fail anyway.

[Eagle Road]

I guess I've always been resigned to being screwed over by health insurance companies.

Thankfully, I've been healthy for the most part and have never required much of a payout from my insurer. I've always felt that when it came time to pay out my insurer would try to find a way to avoid doing so.

The one issue I have had (vision related) is not covered by my insurance and I pay for that care completely out of pocket. I need special contact lenses and the cost of the doctor and lenses is more than $1k per year for that.

We are all pointed by the lessons we have learned though life, it is what forms our opinions, just as you have never felt good about your HC insurer, because of past conflicts I have never trusted my Government to take care of me.

They, the EPA in particular had fucked me good 20+ years ago, they flat out lied to me IN WRITTING, and it cost me everything, now, they are lying to me again, why should I believe them now?

[The Ref]

In the long term a healthy populous is good for the economy. Single payer would be even better, employers should not have to worry about this at all.

How employers became the head of the parade in the health insurance equation is one of the worst wrong turns the country took after WWII. Just at a time when the rest of the civilized world realized that health care is a fundamental human right, the US decided to make it a privilege.

[Eagle Road]

This depends on your state. In California rates for the self employed are significantly lower with the ACA. Plus, people can actually qualify. Before ACA, if you had a preexisting condition, you're out. Can't get insurance at all or so expensive it's as if you can't get it. Period! No chance you can be an entrepreneur and start your own business or even change jobs. It's called JOB-LOCK. Job Lock is now over!!!

Far more people are benefitting from the ACA than hurt by it. And if an employer has 50 or more full time employees and ISN'T offering health insurance for them? Then that employer isn't going to keep good employees and his business will likely fail anyway.

Is this first hand information? The reason I ask is I have a broker that I have dealt with in Cal. and we have become good friends over the years, he is in the same boat that I am with a wife that has a PEC, his new costs are though the roof.

I hear what everyone is saying about ACA being cheaper, but it is NOT what I am finding.

I'll give you a good example, we don't insure my office manager, as her husband is employed by the largest energy provider in our state, they have a "Cadillac" policy.

She just got notified that their deductible starting Jan.! is going to double, they also stated in the letter that their premium, the portion that comes out of his check is going to be raised each quarter next year.

They are claiming they will need to do this to plateau or match where they anticipate there company policy and costs coming in after jan.1 2015.

[Maniac]

You're right in as much as the insurance company may be blaming the government for dropping policies, but don't you see that the government GAVE them the excuse?

Insurance companies never needed an excuse to drop anybody. They've been raising rates for a decade before ACA. And the rates are driven by the providers not the insurance companies.

Now you have a guarantee you can get health insurance. Before you didn't have shit.

Why would an insurance company cover you at a loss if you weren't part of a group? Something about your story doesn't wash.

[FuriousXGeorge]

So, put yourself in my shoes, the guy that has ALWAYS paid his own way

No, put yourself in the shoes of people bankrupted because of health bills. I'm not wasting empathy on the people who are doing fine when so many aren't.

[Eagle Road]

No, put yourself in the shoes of people bankrupted because of health bills. I'm not wasting empathy on the people who are doing fine when so many aren't.

There were/ are so many things such as tort reform and liability limits that could have correct most of these issues, but NEITHER party ever wanted to address that, WHY?

[FuriousXGeorge]

There were/ are so many things such as tort reform and liability limits that could have correct most of these issues, but NEITHER party ever wanted to address that, WHY?

Because those are incomplete bandaids on a fundamentally failed system. Comprehensive reform was necessary.

[Eagle Road]

Insurance companies never needed an excuse to drop anybody. They've been raising rates for a decade before ACA. And the rates are driven by the providers not the insurance companies.

Now you have a guarantee you can get health insurance. Before you didn't have shit.

Why would an insurance company cover you at a loss if you weren't part of a group? Something about your story doesn't wash.

You may be right, maybe my rates were set to raise, the simple answer is, I don't know? My wife's condition was diagnosed about 2.5 years ago, we have had one raise since then.

[Eagle Road]

Because those are incomplete bandaids on a fundamentally failed system. Comprehensive reform was necessary.

I would sooner say it wasn't addressed by either party because both parties had members with their hands in the insurance/drug companies pockets, either directly, as in lobbyist payoffs, or indirectly with board appointments and stock options.

[Eagle Road]

I'll pick this up tom, if you want. 4am comes early.

[FuriousXGeorge]

I would sooner say it wasn't addressed by either party because both parties had members with their hands in the insurance/drug companies pockets, either directly, as in lobbyist payoffs, or indirectly with board appointments and stock options.

Well hey, bring on single payer and you solve a lot of that. If you want a for profit industry to rule a major aspect of our lives they are going to have impact on shaping public policy.