Health overhaul plans seen as too skimpy for people with modest incomes and high medical costs

  • Article by: RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 3, 2014 - 1:05 PM

WASHINGTON — For working people making modest wages and struggling with high medical bills from chronic disease, President Barack Obama's health care plan sounds like long-awaited relief. But the promise could go unfulfilled.

  • 36
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
SwiftBoatJan. 3, 1412:08 PM

NO, no, couldn't be! Obama told us our old programs were crappy and his were the bomb! Why are the Democrats doing this to us?

24
11
elind56Jan. 3, 1412:17 PM

This writer would seem to be describing what the Obamacare advocates referred to as "Junk plans".

23
4
actualreaderJan. 3, 1412:38 PM

Is this the shortest, most unbalanced article ever run in the Strib or just 7 paragraphs of somebody's opinion? According to the Commonwealth Fund, the average out-of-pocket spending on individual plans was $4,127 -- in 2010. It didn't mention all those "ineligitble" for coverage due to "pre-existingt conditions" ranging from inherited disorders to domestic abuse to acne. Similarly, health consumers have NEVER (sarc) faced double-digit increases in their premiums before -- except for the 1990s. So: ensuring care for the most people possible with a few increases and annoyances, or leaving people on the spaghetti-dinner fundraiser plan and seeing the same increases regardless of lack of inflation and other price pressures? Discuss.

7
1
buttlesJan. 3, 1412:39 PM

This writer would seem to be describing what the Obamacare advocates referred to as "Junk plans". == Not quite. While these plans aren't good enough at least the insurer can't cancel your coverage when you try to use it or find creative ways to refuse to pay claims. The out of pockets are still too high, they're better than a $10K, $20K or $100K out of pocket bill. Strange how before the ACA there wasn't as much concern for people who had no coverage or who had insurers that wouldn't hold up their end of the deal.

10
8
drichmnJan. 3, 1412:45 PM

Interesting how the reporter doesn't even bother to compare to what it was prior to ACA. His costs were not capped prior so his costs for cancer treatment would be many hundreds of thousands of dollars more and he would have faced bankruptcy and he could have been kicked off his insurance plan as other people with cancer were and would be un-insured.

12
9
drichmnJan. 3, 1412:49 PM

"This writer would seem to be describing what the Obamacare advocates referred to as "Junk plans"." .... not even close.

6
12
jgmanciniJan. 3, 1412:51 PM

Well, thanks for the information, Mr. Alonso-Zaldivar. What do you propose as a solution? Let me guess--Repeal and Replace? OK, what are you going to replace it with? Is that crickets I hear? Thought so.

10
13
drichmnJan. 3, 1412:52 PM

$5200 as a worst case scenario is still vastly better than what it was prior to the ACA when there was no cap at all.

12
10
drichmnJan. 3, 1412:54 PM

"Why are the Democrats doing this to us?" ... so you preferred no out of pocket caps and being able to be refused for a pre-existing condition?

10
10
lostinstpaulJan. 3, 1412:59 PM

And still, the defenders. What about someone like me, who has a "cadillac plan" with very minumul out of pocket- who now faces $60K in out of pocket BEFORE the plan pays a DIME? Where am I supposed to come up with that after paying $650/mo for me & my wife? I had what the obamaplan calls a platinum plan, and now the platinum appears to be plasti-coat like at Kmart, and wears off as soon as you try to use it. Nice, thanks for sinking my ship.

11
12

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT