Unaffordable” Care Act

Sunday, November 17, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Maybe a more appropriate label for the new health-care law is “Unaffordable” Care Act. I am sure I am not the only member of a group HMO whose monthly premiums will increase significantly in 2014; ours will increase 60 percent or more this January, from $125 to $200 per month, or $900 for the year. The increase is solely due to Medicaid increases.

I have contributed into the Medicare and Social Security systems for 45-plus years, but now as a retiree on a fixed income I am made to subsidize an entitlement program for health care.

There are many in worse financial shape than my family. For example, a self-employed contractor I spoke to who was paying $3,400 a year for a family of four had that policy cancelled by the insurer, and the comparable replacement policy would cost his family $9,000. I have read about “sex workers” (striptease and so on) who supposedly make $40,000 or less annually and will pay $100-$200 per month for health care while receiving $260-plus in monthly tax credits. Lastly, in addition to HMO premium increases, I also was required to pay $18,000 into the ACA because of the new 3.8 percent ObamaCare tax surcharge on investment income, in other words, the retirement fund I have worked to save.

As “Joe Average” citizen who has worked all his life, served in the military, and now is finally retired, I feel offended, disrespected, and exploited.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Welcome to liberal "compassion".

In the early days of the Chavez presidency in Venezuela (a man who is revered by many libs in California), he created a list of fixed prices for staple foods to help the poor. How wonderful and compassionate, right?

Guess what? 70% of the businesses providing food within Venezuela went out of business within two years and now the country *imports* more than 80% of these staple items. The Maduro (successor to Chavez) now counts 1 in 4 of these staples as "chronic shortages".

See what happens when you depend on big government to be efficient? It isn't now and has never been and never will be. Obamacare removes choice, increases premiums, massively overspends via deficits and is the single largest tax on the middle class (via the 3.8% payroll tax) since WWII.

Fantastic! We need much, much more of this. Next up: ObamaHousing, ObamaCars and ObamaFood. So compassionate!

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2013 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

if 3.8% is $18,000 for you, I have no sympathy for your situation. Sales tax is higher than that. This new 'sh__stem' of healthcare is bogus, but better than it was. Also, if your independent contractor friend (highly suspicious) is paying that much more under this new law, its because he makes a lot money. If that's not the case, he must not understand how it works because I have been to the covered california website and done the math. Don't even bother mentioning 'sex workers'. It makes you look like a hypocritical christian, which begs the question what would Jesus think of all this greed? Glad the old 'sh__stem' was working out for you. It was breaking too many others and our broken government couldn't do the obvious and make it easy on everybody, instead we get this. See above comment for more diversion and #fantasyisreality nonsense. ObamaFood, ha! #paranoiddelusion.

spacey (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2013 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The 3.8 TAX? is only on dividend income over $200,000 (individual) and $250,000 (joint) - if someone is paying an extra $18,000 on dividends, this amounts to about $500,000 just in dividends alone - hardly middle class and hardly a fixed income. Most of us who are retired do not see anywhere near that amount of money - or make anywhere near these dividends.
The 3.8% is only due in 2014 for tax year 2013 (and after) - so this would not have been paid already but would be due next April 15..
Someone with this income can afford and extra $75 per month - and the Medicare rates increase yearly regardless of the ACA or Medicaid - stop listening to Foxed News and RW Radio and you may actually learn something.
ANY person under the yearly threshold of pay gets a subsidy - regardless of their occupation and to single out 'sex workers' is just throwing out red meat to the fox hounds.

lacylady (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2013 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear "spacey" and "lacylady"

1. It is likely the author meant $1800 and not $18000 / yr.

2. Anyone with more money than someone else can be told "they can afford it". That idea is tied to the philosophy behind communism, which has proven to be a wildly successful socioeconomic model world-wide (just see how many citizens around the world are benefiting from it)

3. You both have a LOT more money than the average farmer in rural China, so perhaps you'd be fine if (just to make up an illustrative example) the UN imposed a world tax on you to pay for their health care - and when you complained that you only make $20,000/yr gross income, someone can write a letter and tell you they have no sympathy for you and that "you can afford it" compared to the farmer.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2013 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Something doesn't add up here ... Medicare covers individuals who are near or below the poverty line.

Regardless ... the author is likely in his 60's. At that age, I'm curious if a premium of $200 per month is reasonable or not? I know people in their 50's who are paying much more than that for coverage in the private market (though it's difficult to compare apples-apples because policy features can differ widely).

My *group* coverage went up 15% this year. But it's been doing that for years now.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2013 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are talking about utopia, an even playing field for every human, I'm all for it 'realitycheck'. Chinese farmers and billionaires with the same economic power? We could really have 'change' then. Don't tempt me with such dreams. Maybe then we could actually have real leaders that act for the good of humanity instead of profits for the few. And yes, anyone with more money can be told they can afford it.

spacey (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone had the same amount of economic power (more or less) during the cultural revolution in China. Those that tried to take more than their fare share were punished severely. How did that work out for them? Utopia?

Botany (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear spacey: there is no such thing as knowing in advance who will be a "real leader that acts for the good of humanity". This is only determined, rarely, long after they have led.

But you summed up all of left-wing liberal ideology in your paragraph above. It really doesn't matter that in the process of making everyone equal and forcing anyone with a slight bit more than another to give it to the state, Mao caused the killing of 90,000,000 of his countrymen driving to your point of view. As long as we're all equal, who cares that we are starving, living in the dirt and killing eachother for having two tin cups when the other guy has only one?

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: