No Offense , But Why Am I Going To All This Trouble ? You Don’t Believe Me ?
My Son, 23, Graduated And Was Temporarily Living At Home (That Was Not Even A Determing Rule). Although The Law Was In Effect, He Was Not Allowed To Stay On My Insurance Because It Was A “Grandfathered Plan”. I Went To Great Lengths (filing complaints) To Have That Decision Overturned, But Could Not. It Sucked, Very Frustrating. Take My Word Or Don’t.
Fortunately, He Got His Own Employer Provided Healthcare before The Deadline.
One says workers will be forced into their state’s Medicaid program, but my state has chosen not to expand Medicaid, not to set up an exchange, and not to cooperate with Obamacare.
" Budget Report: More Employers Than Previously Estimated Will Drop Health Coverage "
Many employees will lose/have lost health coverage by having their hours reduced or being let go completely.
CSA…I in no way disbelieve what you are saying. But the entire post is filled with too general derogatory statements along with a personal experience that I was trying to understand the particulars of. People losing their jobs, the mother of all liberal experiments included with your personal experience makes it difficult for me to grasp the real facts…the only thing I can get from what you say is, because your plan was grandfathered, they did not have to insure him if your son had a group plan available otherwise…through his employer. That was one of the points I made. Regardless, that’s one of the stipulations and he could not go on your plan. The idea is get everyone insured, one way or another. Under his group plan, that group still has to offer all,the other advantages I listed. I think any of those are just as important or did you just want this issue about 26 year olds to be the main point…I don’t get it.
There are a number of people who will always feel that govt. in any form is no good, and only the capitalism in it’s purest form will make things right and I do hear a lot of anger and frustration. I do too at the present situation. But,thousands of people dying each year without healthcare deserve more response then, it’s just a liberal experiment. I feel there should be Medicare for all with a single payer healthcare system with no employer contribution. So, we are divided by a chasm. You think Obamacare stinks and is too liberal and I think it’s insufficient and not progressive enough. I get it .
But without a plan from the other side, I’m riding this horse.
@dagosa #4 on your list, here.
I had insurance but had 4 of 10 positives for prostate. Expiring COBRA would have forced me off of medical insurance because insurance companies could have exclusions and high risk rates. Expiring COBRA then forced a decision to do surgery rather than wait and see. Prostate is a slow growing cancer and early stage is only viewed as “abnormal but likely” but aggessiveness is unknown.
@Bing,was cognizant of that fact.Having a bit of Sioux in my bloodline(think it makes me more aware of the natural world) anyway most of my ancestors came from the high latitudes,I would venture to say they left more from necessity,rather then choice,I dont really think there is such a thing as a " noble savage" but I do know that some Folks joined the Indians and never looked back.
I dont know who was here before the Indians,but I dont think being the Third group of “squatters” gives us any special claim on this land.And somebody please explain to me how can anybody really own thousands of acres of land on the only inhabitable place in the Solar system vs the unborn with thier desires and rights?(they will come into being ,think they will thank us for burning all the oil?)-Kevin
@longprine
I sympathies with your situation and hope you are in the care and good judgement of the doctors of your choice. We so will pray that you get all the support you need.
@kmccune
My lawyer is also my best friend. He and his wife are conservative so we don’t talk politics. But, we do agree on one thing. Laws by their very nature have to be written in such a way that they minimizes their chance to be easily overturned or avoided. The biggest advantage of the rich, is the legal barrier they have which is unavailable to us which make many laws difficult to apply. That’s why any program need have a high degree of complexity to avoid these barriers. Even our tax laws allow those with the means to avoid their fair share. A simple, but fair tax decided upon with a flat rate seems logical until you realize that the rich don’t even pay the same rates as some of the lower middle income do now.
Ergo, complicated tax laws…and it’s in debate now with the proposed budget as to how much the rich should ne allowed to avoid taxes altogether. That’s why we have the sequester in place. The original Ryan plan, the Repulican bench mark, proposes zero tax rates for anyone receiving income through capital gains. That’s how many of the rich receive their income. Guess who would then loose their deductions and have their rates increase…whether it be flat rate or graduated for salaried employees. Those earning less then 200k would see their taxes go up under a simplified Ryan pllan, because those gaining income from capital gains would pay no taxes… So, is simple better? It is if you are rich. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/paul-ryans-tax-plan-measures-americans/t/story?id=16994803&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dryan%2Bbudget%2Bcapital%2Bgains%2Brates%26form%3DAPIPA1
@longprime
" I don’t understand/.
Your son was working and eligible for his employer’s health progran but elected to try to be on your employer’s plan? "
In a nutshell, my son was living away from home for five years (undergrad and grad degree) and was covered by my insurance until he finished school at age 23 when he temporarily returned home and looked for a job. The new law said that he could remain on my insurance until age 26. As he had no other insurance after they pulled the plug, that would have helped him until he got a job, but the insurance company was “grandfathered” and chose not to cover him beyond 12/31 of that year.
That’s why all my questions. Something is amiss as your reference says that even grandfathered plans are required to cover your child till he is 26. The only exception being if his employer, which he had non at the time, offered a group plan. My question is, did your state insurance board shaft you too by agreeing with refusing coverage for your child with no job while this provision was in effect ? I AM not criticizing !
I’m just asking.
I Pursued The Fiasco While Son Interviewed For Employment. I Was Getting Nowhere, Sent In Circles. It Was Very Frustrating And Time Consuming.
The December 31 deadline was near and I just planned on his having to get his own insurance policy (COBRA) when he landed a great position that included very good health insurance. It was just before Christmas and at that time I gladly quit trying to keep him on my insurance, as there was no need.
Fortunately with Obamacare, folks won’t run into these problems. A call to the state or federal government or the IRS should straighten out any problems.
Also, add the people who bought homes they couldn't afford that we helped bail out their mortgages.
We DID NOT bail out the people who bought homes they couldn’t afford…WE BAILED OUT THE MORTGAGE companies and the insurance companies who SCREWED the other 95%. Speculative house buying was less then 5% of the market when it crashed. They had little or nothing to do with the problem. The problem was with the banks bundling the “BAD” mortgages with “GOOD” mortgages and then selling all of it as “GOOD/PRIME”. Then companies like AIG insuring these bundles. They knew it was bad…they continued the practice and then the “COMPANIES” …NOT THE INDIVIDUALS…got bailed out with a few TRILLION dollars from our taxes.
The people who couldn’t afford the home they were buying…guess what…they LOSS their homes and filed bankruptcy.
Yes, @Mike, the housing debacle resulted from big banks pumping mortgages. Does everyone forget the massive waves of spam pushing 110% refinancing and get rich quick real estate schemes? There were a dozen mortgage brokerage offices opened in this hick town and they played every scam in the book to make loans. The CDOs and CDSs gave big banks license to steal and they did so with a vengeance. And when the banks saw their bubble bursting they convinced the congress that the sky would fall if their gambling debts weren’t covered.
Well they’re still on the radio here. “Do you owe $300K on a house only worth $150K? We may still be able to refinance your loan.” Guess what, so they can flip it and sell it to Fanny. A lot of these guys have evidently moved into the reverse mortgage business now and I don’t know, I thought the greatest generation was smarter than that. They still seem to be falling for these money schemes thinking they can get money the easy way. Hard to feel sorry for them anymore. There was an article in the paper a few days ago whining about a couple that got screwed thinking they sell the house, keep the money, and keep the house too. Of coure the reverse mortgager takes their 20-40% of the pie right off the bat.
Even a friend of mine when he was retiring and pulling every bit of present value dollars out of his pensions at the expense of the future, answered that he’d do a reverse mortgage if he ran out of money. Too bad so sad but he doesn’t have a house anymore to mortgage-reverse or otherwise.
The ONLY news organization that said the problem was with all these people buying bigger homes then they could afford was Fox News. Every other news corp new the truth. I suspect that Fox news new the truth also…just that it would put big business and George Bush in a bad light that they REFUSED to tell it. Instead they came up with that story…But anyone who actually wants to know the truth…this story about the banks and their bundling…it’s all well documented.
This may be a little naive on my part and I am not trying to excuse the banks, but the times were ripe for such shenanigans with interest rates so low to artificially stimulate a failing economy, the only way banks could turn a profit was by moving money, and lot’s of it. Quantity and not quality was necessary keep profits coming. I understand keeping interest rates low for growth, but a solid economy can only grow with moderately high rates where common sense prevails in banking. Banks would have capital on hand to encourage legitimate loans if they could afford to pay savings account, Cd s and money market rates that exceeded the cost of living increases…remember when ?
We still aren’t there yet IMHO and won’t be until we stop blaming the middle class for failures in the past. Faux news does a wonderful job at this.
This may be a little naive on my part and I am not trying to excuse the banks, but the times were ripe for such shenanigans with interest rates so low to artificially stimulate a failing economy, the only way banks could turn a profit was by moving money, and lot's of it.
LOT’s of banks made profit back then…without the shenanigans. Most were small banks (maybe 100 branches at most). They were blinded by greed. My credit union is doing pretty good too.
@mikeinnh
Back then, the interest rates were higher during the pre Bush years. Not that it did not occurr earlier, but with low interest rates, many banks were begging people to borrow money, often overstating their collateral and earning ability. People actually trusted the system cause dad always said one of the best investment vehicles was real estate. Little did they know, many banks were taking advantage of borrowing ignorance. The smaller banks were much less inclined doing this, but they weren’t totally immune either. Remember too, there are still a lot of people banking money for rates now that wouldn’t cover your gas bill to drive to the bank. Banks are making money now on a relatively strong market, not loans. I know painting all banks with one brush is unfair and you and I know of some local banks who did right by their customers.
But, I also know of Banks right in the Manchester area who were overstating borrower collateral to move funds…they weren’t the top 100 either.
@csa
We have 1child. Son finished grad school at age 23, 2008, I had him enrolled in health insurance (80/20, high deductible insurance). One of the interesting facts I learned was, at his then age, the cost for individual insurance was slightly less than our employer’s comprehensive group-family coverage; I should have gotten him an individual coverage at an earlier age, like at age 18; and drop our employer’s coverage from family to spouse coverage. (2)Pre-existing (hayfever, allergies, acne) and chronic aliments can either disqualify, rate, or have exclusions in the medical insurance policy; (3)A gap in med insurance overage will have an deductible of 6 months before any claims will be covered;and (4) the time to get insurance be it life, health, auto and home or longterm care is when you don’t need insurance.
The goal of an medical insurance company is to make a profit on healthy clients. The risk in insuring sketchy applicants is not worth the cost in raising premiums to the remaining healthy clients.
@dag - Unfortunately there were too many banks doing this with too many customers. I’m sure my mortgage was part of it. It was with CitiCorp at the time. Our mortgage was probably bundled with some under prime mortgage then resold as prime. It was so common back then. We refinanced last year with a local bank who actually holds their own mortgage.
