HSA and a low cost catastrophic plan makes a ton more sense than what we have now. My wife got up to $430 per month for an individual plan with a $6,500 out of pocket before we decided to just quit paying it. That was last year, it is even more expensive this year. I have a short term plan which is the same as the old catastrophic plan. My out of pocket is $10k but my monthly is $75. Would take 26 months to save that $10k at the $450 her premium was this year.

So two years on her plan is $10,800 in monthly premium + whatever costs she incurred up to $6,500 per year. And at the end she has zero in the bank to show for it whether she used the insurance or not.

Two years on mine is $1,800 in monthly premium, if I take out the same $450 per month and save the rest I end up with $9,000 saved. I don't go to the doctor, ever. Unless I am bleeding to death, a bone is broken or I am unconscious I ain't going.

Now which plan do you think makes sense for me?

Problem is the lovely O-Care took away the catastrophic plans and HSA's. So my plan is only good for 10 months, then I have to go 3 months with no insurance, then I can apply again and they don't have to give it to me because it is designed to just be a stop gap now. Oh and I am supposed to pay a penalty to the government because it is a non-compliant plan.

This is what who did pre-ACA? It may have worked well for you and some others with enough income to spare, but this amnesiac longing for the 'good old days' back under GWB when healthcare was supposedly both easily affordable and widely accessible is high on revisionism and low on facts... Cost curves were already going up sharply and performance metrics were generally poor and worsening long *before* ACA ~ which, you know, is kinda why Obama was able to make health care reform part of a successful campaign platform; if it was so great before, it wouldn't have been worth much traction on which to help get elected. Duh.

You can easily argue ACA ended up being a turd, but don't act like the system was never broke and didn't need fixing before.

Mexico pays for the wall. Canada will pay for health care.

In the long run, yes.

But most people don't live in the long run. Sure, people can start making better choices, but how long does it take for those who have dug themselves into a hole to pull themselves out? And what do they do in the meantime?

You can easily argue ACA ended up being a turd, but don't act like the system was never broke and didn't need fixing before.

I don't know anyone who thought the system was great before. But the ACA made it worse for a LOT of people, and is simply unsustainable. The model makes no sense. When you break a system that was bad to start with, going back to the way it was before is still an improvement. If you can actually fix it, that's a bonus.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

LOL some people really are clueless.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

I have healthcare through my employer but was curious so last year I went on the exchange. With a household income over $100K living in the midwest and I qualified for subsidies. You might need to rethink, who you think qualifies for subsidies.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

I think you underestimate how many people live that way.


Granted, there are several different ways to interpret that data, but I have no reason to believe the number is terribly far from reality.


To clarify, by "most people" I was referring to those whose incomes exceed the limit to qualify for public assistance. Reading again, I didn't make that clear.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

He has a point, if people made smart decisions and wanted less stuff they could save money

So and how is that increasing % going to be paid for?

Always funny to see how the 'changers' just gloss over the really salient issues.

Especially if they just casually skim over the fact that they advocate more government, higher taxes and less social safety/security.

Live in the hole, I guess.

If only Eve hadn't eaten that apple.

---

“Read the transcript.”

Correct. How many people can actually afford things like smartphones? Now compare that to the number of people who actually have smartphones.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

vitus979 wrote:

Thanks, that's a more comprehensive description of his plan than I'd read. Sounds good so far.

So far so good...

Rand Paul goes on tweet storm after GOP refuses to let the public view the Obamacare bill

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Yeah, I saw that. Not good when Rand Paul is hosting the press at his very own protest of House Republicans.

Looking increasingly like the Republicans are gonna screw us. I hope they all have private sector jobs lined up.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Nice Intern.

I like her casual, purpose-driven outfit.

She can't give him a copy of it because it doesn't exist.

Or low earners who spend foolishly. Not everyone needs a $700 smartphone. Yet everyone has a $700 smartphone.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?