Cool that is the numbers and link I gave them.

He says he got his numbers straight off of this site.

https://prd.connectforhealthco.com/i...ibility/result

Not sure if he is doing something wrong or the site is buggy or what.

Here's what would have happened before ObamaCare:

They had decent insurance, the kid gets a major illness. They go over their lifetime limit, the insurance company is off the hook for EVERYTHING after that. They could go bankrupt even with six or seven figures in savings.

The kid gets a major illness, it is deemed a preexisting condition. Now insurance doesn't have to cover anything. Even though they were paying a premium for insurance they thought covered their kid, the ins. co found a way to scam them out of having to pay anything.

Both of these situations are now illegal under Obamacare. The family will be able to get care for their kid without going bankrupt, and if the family makes under a certain amount and doesn't have access to care through their employer they will get subsidized coverage. The individual mandate plus online health exchanges are going to broaden and deepen the pool of insured which will reduce costs for everyone. Exactly how many people are going to sign up will determine how much costs are reduced--of course Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep the program from functioning, because they want it to fail (making health insurance far more expensive for Americans, but having a huge failure to pin on Obama).

The Medicaid Expansion would have helped millions of low-income Americans have free/cheap health coverage like the post you quoted is talking about, however Republican govs and legislatures in 21 states have completely rejected these expansions--even though they are almost wholly paid for by federal funds. The states in question simply flat out rejected the funds, because they do not want to provide more health care access for poor people.

I'm thinking those are the monthly plans price before the tax credit but I could be wrong.

He'll probably come back with an 'omg that's not what it says on the CO exchange website!!1'111'1'

Here's a plan currently on there:



It's a bit higher overall but the max OOPs are a bit lower. With the same subsidy amount (74%) the family would pay about 182/mo.

Everyone please note that a policy's Out of Pocket maximum is not the same as its deductible so please laugh at the next guy that posts that he has to pay 20k per year before he'll see any benefits.

That is exactly what it is.

Here's the link I'm using:

https://prd.connectforhealthco.com/i...een/findAPlan# (go to just browse plans and enter the family data)

He's basically just looking at the cost of the plans with no subsidy which is really ****ing stupid.

http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefi...caid-expansion

Another article trying to suggest that obamacare lead to an employer or two cutting hours or jobs. It's disgusting how these conservative nut jobs think that employers or individuals can be influenced by money (higher costs, taxes, etc). If they think obamacare gave employers incentive to cut hours they are probably dumb enough to think minimum wage discourages employers to hire.

http://news.investors.com/politics-o...tm?ref=SeeAlso

Obamacare is good for EVERYONE except the people it is bad for!

Where's your hot dog analogy?

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a revelation or something. Everybody knows it gives employers an incentive to cut hours. Everybody knows that it will negatively impact some people.

Disney Offers Full-Time to Park Staff as Obamacare Starts

Disney Offers Full-Time to Park Staff as Obamacare Starts

ponyslow.jpg

At least it's riding through a land full of wonder and imagination.

Another article trying to suggest that some companies will offer benefits despite the fact that they've had a huge incentive to drop benefits since forever. It's disgusting how these liberal nut jobs think that employers or individuals can be influenced by competition in the labor market (benefits, retention, etc). If they think that history has shown companies not dropping health coverage despite having an incentive to do so they are probably dumb enough to think that history has shown that a minimum wage increase wouldn't have a major impact on employment rates.

Sorry about that, here you go:

If hotdog vendors were required by law to buy 2 packets of pickle relish (healthcare) for every hotdog (employee) they purchase the price of hotdogs (labor) would go up. This would mean that the vendors would stop buying & selling so many hotdogs (employes) and start buying and selling more Italian sausages (machines to take the place of human labor) since they aren't required to but relish for them.

People ITT (as with all liberals) were denying over and over again any reports that any company would cut hours or jobs because of aca. This was back when darden restaurants and papa johns were first coming out saying the negative consequences obamacare would have on their employees.

There is always incentive to not hire or even fire an employee. That is what any form of compensation is.

A company chooses to hire someone when they believe that individual will increase revenues more than he will cost the company. When costs are increased through higher wages or other costs (ie healthcare) that individual most increase revenues more to stay employed.

Disney can't just give those people any level of health care right? I mean there has to be a certain level of coverage for it to disqualify them from using the exchanges right?

Of course, what's left out of your analogy is that 95% of all hot dog vendors already buy the relish for every hot dog, and small time vendors are not required to do so.

How much of Disney doing this is about PR and how much is due to the ACA?

http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201310/3703/

It also has to meet certain income requirements to prevent them from getting subsidies. If you're employer plan costs more than 9.5% of household income (and you would normally qualify for subsidies because you're in the 100-400 FPL range) you would still be able to access the exchanges, with subsidies, even though you have employer coverage.

ETA: Disqualify them from using exchanges is probably a bad way to phrase it. Anyone can turn down their employer coverage and buy from the exchange. Whether they get subsidies or not is a different thing.

The decision is almost always a financial one.

According to KFF's estimates I'm looking at about $278/month for the Silver plan with $0 in subsidies.