If you take advantage of ACA’s free sex re-assignment surgery, then those benefits might be of use.
I’m an 18 year old and I had a few questions about the ACA:
- Why does it matter if a child stays on their parents plan? Couldn't a plan be taken in the child's name and be funded by the parent?
- Do the price of insurance go up depending on income? Does it reach a cap at XXX income? I know there are advertisements about getting 'great insurance' at 50-100 a month, but that sure is not true for my family.
There is one law that tweaks me. If an employer has 50+ (or 100+, I’m not sure) employees, they must offer benefits to the employees and be willing to pay half. The thing is, my parents run a staffing company with 7 actual employees. When they hire someone for a company, the employee is put on their payroll and the company they are working for pays my parents an amount greater than that.
My parents can’t afford to to give a bunch of temp and full time employees healthcare when they don’t even work for my parents, but that is the way the law works. It has really hindered the growth of their business. I’m not sure if that is from the ACA, is it?
Also, insurance truly is too expensive. Mine is 300 a month, my 20 year old sister, 400, my 51 year old dad, 800, my 52 year old mom, 700 a month.
That right there is 26400 a year. Our deductible is 5k a person. Talk about absurd. No major health issues (no diabetes, no heart problems, etc).
Before ACA, our insurance was half that, and our deductible was lower.
1- Did you know that men can get breast cancer, too? Male mammograms are a thing.
2- I have a feeling your DSs will appreciate birth control coverage in the future even if they’re not the ones taking it 
3- Same as above.
Weirdly enough, men do benefit from all these things. Unless, of course, you want to watch the women in your lives suffer and die from breast cancer, go bankrupt from a child that, presumably unless they were abducted by aliens, a man contributed to, etc etc.
This type of thinking will never make any sense to me. A healthy population benefits ALL of us. Not letting women go bankrupt benefits ALL of us.
ETA: I have no idea what getting “ACA for my family” means anyway but that’s a whole other story.
In our case, the group plan we had our kids on through an employer had much better coverage, and our out of pocket costs were less than purchasing the same insurance individually for them.
That’s a red herring @menloparkmom
For most types of insurance, cost is based upon expected benefits. Young drivers pay more than older drivers because they are a higher risk. Male drivers pay more on average than female drivers for the same reason.
Yet for health insurance, you are expecting people to ignore the fact that women consume more in health services than men. It is a completely reasonable position to ask that women pay more than men, given that they consume more health services. But based upon reactions like yours, people get very upset about it.
The ACA distorts reality in two major ways. First, young people are asked to pay more than their costs. Second, men are being asked to pay more than their costs as well. So, the ACA is discriminating against both young people and men. People notice that this doesn’t make sense, and many are rejecting it.
Oh for the love of God ! It’s not a red herring!!it’s a fact! Women were not covered for many of their medical conditions before the ACA.
I talk about red herrings !! The fact is that women DO live longer than men.
That is why more medical expenses are paid to women. What would you do? Kill off older women so that the expenses of healthcare are not greater than that spent on MEN ???
X(
That is the reality.
And if you want to change insurance rates charged to young people – why aren’t you up in arms about how much it costs a young person for car insurance? It cost someone under the age of 27 FAR more for car insurance and then it does someone who’s older. Why? Because the the facts are that younger people get in more accidents the mature drivers.
And older people get sick more often then young people. So unless you want a single payer government provided insurance that does not discriminate against anyone regardless of age, sex-then some will pay more and some will pay less based on demographics.
See, this is exactly the type of emotional response that is causing the ACA such problems. And to be clear, I am talking about costs, not covered conditions.
Some young people and men see the costs, rationally determine it is overpriced, and reject it. And rather than making the system better through risk pooling, it makes it worse through adverse selection. This causes premiums to rise quickly. How is this not obvious to everyone?
One reason women cost more is because they give birth, and/or require birth control. I would assume most men appreciate that fact. Only women should pay for perpetuating the species?
Think this is a good article that explains why you can’t just have some parts of the ACA (covering pre-existing conditions) and avoiding other parts (individual mandate).
Not sure who you are arguing with here. I think that car insurance rates are appropriately set according to risk.
ACA does allow insurance companies to charge older people more for insurance, but it limits the range of payments between the youngest and the oldest to a smaller multiplier. See the following:
http://www.naifa.org/practice-resources/prp/age-band-rating-(aca)
I’m no longer convinced…
I’m older than dirt. I remember back in the day when unmarried single women could NOT get health insurance with maternity coverage…period. Oh…and if you did marry, and gave birth within a certain period of time after your married health insurance kicked in…the childbirth was not covered…at all. Not a nickel of it.
When I was no longer of child bearing age, however, I did not see a reduction in my insurance costs. And this was way pre ACA.
Oh…and my first name is one which could be male or female. One year, some incorrect person at the BC/BS company listed me as a male…so that caused some huge issues for me. Sure, they straightened it out… but it took some time!
My children were covered when they were born because I had a family plan. Single mothers giving birth not only didn’t have their childbirth covered, but they could NOT get “family plans”. Really. I’m not making this up.
So we really think this is where we want to go?
Two of the three most important people in my life are my wife (married 24+ years) and my daughter. I try to be a good husband and father to both my daughter and son.
But none of that changes reality. Women cost more for health services. But since both men and women are charged the same, men are being asked to pay more as a result, and some of them (particularly the young and unattached) rationally say “no thanks”.
@thumper1 and didn’t pregnancy used to be a pre-existing condition as well?
For our family, the ACA gave us a 10K deductible!!! My father at age 82 was booted from his supplemental insurance. Don’t assume it was good for all.
@ClarinetDad16 I had that in my post. If you gave birth within a certain number of months of getting a family plan…it was NOT covered.
emotional responses are not what is causing the ACA so many problems.
what is causing problems is the mandate to get insurance was not airtight- like paying into SS is.
Everyone working has to pay into the SS system- everyone working over the age of 26 should be required to pay into a national health insurance system.
regardless of sex or age.
and talking about costs without regard to the reality of what those costs cover is just an exercise in disillusion thinking.
yes, women tend to live longer than men. But from an actuarial standpoint, the increased medical costs for women is not just due to longevity. Women use more medical services at yearly every age cohort. That is the [actuarial] reality.