ObamaCare is just not worth it for many

For many having health insurance isn’t worth it.

First, we learned that the cost of ObamaCare keeps going up in terms of deductibles and premiums.

Now we learn a quarter of those who signed up for ObamaCare this past year dropped it by the end of the year, according to an IBD editorial today. In fact, 1.5 million who signed up never paid their first premium.

“An official report released last Friday said that enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges fell to 8.8 million by the end of the year, from 11.7 million who’d initially signed up,” IBD reports. “That’s a 25% decline.”

23 comments on “ObamaCare is just not worth it for many

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    I recently watched an old episode of the Andy Griffith Show. Aunt Bea was sick and went to the Doctor. He gave her a check-up some pills and charged her $5
    What happened?

  2. nyp says:

    People don’t need to purchase individual policies from the Exchanges if they find employment and are able to sign up for a plan offered through their employer. When total employment goes up (as it has been doing for the past 54 months,) the need for policies from the exchanges goes down.

    The key number is the number of Americans who have gained health insurance as a result of ObamaCare. More than 20 million Americans now have health coverage for themselves and their families as a result of health reform, and the percentage of uninsured Americans has dropped too an all-time low.

    Of course, Mr. Mitchell and the Repubicans want to take that insurance protection away.

  3. Steve says:

    Nyp, ACA requires employees to select their employer plan over an exchange plan. It’s in the law. Employees do have the option to buy insurance on the open market and ACA requires all to have insurance, but the open market is prohibitively expensive, even for people earning over 80,000 gross.

  4. nyp says:

    The first part of your statement is correct. If your job comes with health insurance you can’t buy a plan on the exchanges. That is deliberate.
    It is also true that purchasing a plan on the open market — and not on the exchanges — is often very expensive. Open market plans have always been very expensive because the insurer isn’t ovvering the equivalent of a volume discount.

    If you can’t get insurance at work, the best alternative is to buy a plan on the exchange. Many people (but not everyone) are eligible for special subsidies.

  5. Steve says:

    In my case (as I have stated several times) we got subsidies. Not because we had any income during my 5 month dry spell. Because we had inheritance and savings, both are not considered earnings and are not taxable, therefore I had to “estimate” my “earnings” so we could take advantage of subsidies. I checked, had we taken the Medicaid option, we would have been held to pay back (at full retail) any services we took from Medicaid, including prescriptions.
    As things stand I found we will be held to pay back at least a good portion of any subsidy used in 2016. Thankfully that will be based only on 3 months, but I still have no way of knowing how much punishment we will receive for my obtaining gainful employment.

    Remember, those subsidies are based on annual modified adjusted gross income. I am earning quite a bit more than I “estimated” based on not knowing if I would even find a good paying job this year.

    As things stand, I think people landing jobs are going to be very (unpleasantly) surprised come Apr 2017.

  6. Steve says:

    That takes care of that…I am on the hook for the full amount of subsidy payed to the insurance company.
    Now, I note this is better than the Medicaid punishment, but it is still punishing me for getting a job that pays well!
    Of course, I had the “option” of paying full boat and taking whatever amount I “qualified” for (none) at the end of the year…..this punishes people who don’t have any money and it severely shortens the time one is able to last on savings while looking for work.

    And this shouldn’t be about INSURANCE it should be about MEDICAL SERVICES when needed!

    Fugly, law.


  7. nyp says:

    Ok, so your complaint is that the subsidy rules should be more flexible. And that Medicaid eligibility is far too onerous.

    I dunno. Perhaps they should be. Sounds like an adjustment in the law that would be well worth considering. Write your Congressman and Senators.

  8. Steve says:

    The “adjustment” should be to focus on services, not insurance coverage.

  9. Steve says:

    Oh, and writing people who are FOR obamacare (Dina Titus) is less useful than going back and forth with you and Patrick, Nyp.
    At least I get a chuckle out some of the things you two say.

  10. Rincon says:

    Obamacare is lousy. It’s only selling point is that it’s better than the previous system.

  11. Rincon says:

    Saw it in Time Magazine, HFB. This is a leftover from the old system. Doctors were in and out of various networks long before Obamacare came around. You’re complaining about the most capitalistic part of Obamacare. These are capitalists trying to maximize their profits and, as with most capitalists now and throughout history, they don’t mind breaking a few eggs.

  12. Steve says:

    Nevada Health COOP was not a capitalist, or market, operation, Rincon.
    It was set up, supported by and used up by union leaders and the government.
    Nevada Health COOP was a socialist as it gets.

  13. Rincon says:

    Government funded?

  14. Steve says:


    yup and Nevada won’t get their 65,925,396 back, making the failed COOP fully taxpayer funded.

  15. Rincon says:

    I don’t mean to nit pick, but according to the CCIIO, “CO-OP loans are only made to private, nonprofit entities that demonstrate a high probability of financial viability”. https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Grants/new-loan-program.html

    While the debate over whether the government should be making loans to health insurance providers is another issue, it seems likely that the Nevada Health Care COOP was indeed private, albeit supported with a government loan.

  16. Steve says:

    “high probability of financial viability”

    now that is funny…..

    Socialism, it’s the only description that fits what really happened.

  17. Rincon says:

    Wasn’t this “socialist” business competing in a capitalistic marketplace? If it’s in a capitalistic marketplace, how socialist is it really?

  18. Steve says:

    Speaking of being obtuse.

    I give you Rincon!

  19. Rincon says:

    My question is reasonable and legitimate. You will not attempt to answer it. Concession noted.

  20. Steve says:

    This is because I ALREADY answered it….asking it in multiple forms is obtuse.

  21. Rincon says:

    Sorry, but I guess I’m just too dumb to tease the meaning out of your words. No problem. I’ve lost interest.

  22. Steve says:

    “lost interest” concession, noted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s