This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore afisher. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
Some here seem to forget that here in reality land, some journalist actually do their job and drill down past the veneer of an issue.
Last week, Fox had some folks on their program that complained about their "healthcare woes" and then a Salon writer, contacted those folks and found at that they hadn't an effing clue about what was on the exchange or even if they qualified for a subsidy.
Since then, sites have begged folks - tell us your story. One has to wonder if any of those contacts were fact checked. So for all of you who post those "claims" - did you do any research or did you just jump on a train to nowhere.? If the latter - shame on you - you are supposed to be an adult.
The LA Times researched another of the "claims" that was posted on CNBC and one of their crack team at CNBC did their smile/ nod...so LA Times reporter called the individual:
Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.
This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.
As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'll really be paying. Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.
Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.
At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.
Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-debunked-20131030,0,6010994.story#axzz2jKh026Oc
While I can understand a debate about politics - selling an out and fabrication about ACA based on no knowledge - you should all be ashamed of yourself.
When one talks about low-info folks - please grab a mirror to see exactly who fits into that category.