Wasn't it considered an affordable option for laid off folks once upon a time?
21 replies (most recent on top)
Don't work, Sign up for Covered California, Your monthly premium will be very affordable! Uninsured is not an option Don't listen ;0);0);0);0);0);0)
If you're completely healthy and can't afford $30k/year for insurance, being uninsured is an option.
Don't work! Sign up for Covered California and wait for Universal High Income at the same time! Paying too much income taxes in the past. Time to relax! ;0);0);0);0);0);0)
I'm guessing that since ACA, private plans and Medicare premiums have been increasing between 10-25% the last few years is impacting COBRA pricing. I got a letter this year for my ACA/Obamacare plan that prices will be increasing between 15%-33% in 2027. This after it increased by 15% last year.
@am So, basically your ‘sheep-le’ comment is meant to say we should not all follow the laws like sheep…How then should we follow them then, in your esteemed opinion (this is a famous psychology question): after which animal’s behaviour?
@OP The pre-Obamacare system absolutely had serious problems for people with pre-existing conditions, but saying they were “simply uninsurable” isn't quite accurate. Before the ACA, 35 states operated high-risk pools specifically for people who couldn't obtain ordinary individual coverage, and federal HIPAA protections also provided certain pathways to coverage. The bigger problem was that these alternatives could be extremely expensive, have high deductibles, waiting periods, and benefit limitations; in many states, high-risk-pool premiums were as much as two to two-and-a-half times standard individual-market premiums. The ACA's major change was to replace that patchwork with guaranteed access to individual-market coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, beginning in 2014. So the historical problem was real, but “there was no option whatsoever until Obamacare” isn't an accurate description of the pre-ACA system.
@OP A factual rebuttal can acknowledge the ACA's real changes while pointing out that the post oversimplifies both the history and the policy debate:
It’s fair to acknowledge that the ACA made important changes: before 2014, insurers in the individual market could deny coverage, exclude pre-existing conditions, or price people out based on their health, and many employer plans had lifetime limits. The ACA prohibited those practices and eliminated lifetime dollar limits on essential health benefits. (HealthCare.gov) But saying “Republicans don't want to reform healthcare” is a political generalization, not a factual description of the policy record. Republicans have proposed multiple healthcare reforms, including alternatives to the ACA; the substantive disagreement has generally concerned how coverage should be structured, regulated, and paid for, rather than whether healthcare should be reformed at all. Even several Republican replacement proposals retained some protection for people with pre-existing conditions, although independent fact-checking found that their protections were generally less comprehensive than the ACA's. (PolitiFact) And COBRA's high cost isn't simply a consequence of Republicans refusing reform: COBRA generally requires a former employee to pay the entire premium—including the portion previously paid by the employer—plus up to a 2% administrative fee. (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) So there are legitimate arguments to make about the ACA and Republican healthcare proposals, but reducing the entire issue to “Republicans don't want healthcare reform” leaves out important facts.
This version concedes the strongest factual point in the original statement—the ACA substantially strengthened pre-existing-condition and lifetime-limit protections—while challenging the broader partisan characterization.
@an What do you mean Trumps literally tried multiple times to repeal Obama ACA.. And said he has a better plan but never shared his plan. Those are facts not lies
@OP yeah, I say we start a worker’s right movement to protect the sick among us that the employers will have to bite the bullet for the first 3 months and pay for the cobra health insurance - its the least they can do for not giving us all a raise in due time….
@ac That's how they muddy the waters. Each side makes their supporters think it's the other side that comes into power every other decade that's in the way. That and occasional wins keep you interested in voting and waiting while frustrated most of the time.
Cash-only is already cheaper. Ask for cash prices from any provider (they are now required by law) and do not reveal that you have insurance. You'll get reformed prices. Government or insurance should not be involved in your personal health, or they'll always seek their cut.
Laws and rules are made to keep sheeple in control.
They are not written for We the People.
The House never loses.
Imagine what it was like BEFORE obamacare! If you had a preexisting condition and were too old to find a new job and had a gap before you were 65 and elgible for medicare, you were simply uninsurable.
Cobra is expensive because republicans don't want to reform healthcare. Obama tried to push for this. Bernie Sanders tried to push for this. In fact many republicans want to repeal Obama ACA. Which is mo--nic. Do people event know before the Obama ACA a health insurance company could not cover you for preexisting conditions? They could even drop you if you hit the lifetime limit they arbitrarily set. Madness.
you know (((why)))
No, COBRA was always ridiculously expensive...speaking as someone who's used it in the past. The only "good" side to it was that it was almost the ONLY way to get any health insurance without being employed before the ACA and the marketplaces.
It is the true cost of the insurance Oracle pays. As an employee, they subsidize 80%. You're now paying the full price.
It's all part of the BOHICA Factor.
No Cobra has always been ridiculously expensive because insurance is ridiculously expensive.
Cobra is the same insurance you have while you are employed. The only difference is the amount that your employer would contribute is paid by you.
No