Many people could be forced to sell their house because of $356. Get off your high-horse.

You must live a pretty charmed life. For those who live paycheck to paycheck an increase like this can ruin lives. You say just get a part time job? Hes already tired from working all day, where would he get the energy? When would he see his family?
The bottom line is the government imposed a massive tax increase on everybody and its going to hurt the blue collar guys the most.

With $17.5 Trillion in national debt today, in 5 years it will be 100% of my AGI.
Cheers

"It is hurting the people it promised to help"... that is why they must constantly change the subject of their "crisis d'jour". It makes it more difficult for the afflicted to take aim at a target that is constantly moving. ACA, comprehensive immigration reform, war on women, red line in Syria, not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, Benghazi smenghazi - no there, there...just three dead American heroes, impeachment, global warming, carbon foot print, food police, political correctness, free education....
Always remember, even though the target is moving, focus on the front sight and squeeze while tracking the moving target. Don't be distracted by the flash of a press briefing distraction on Friday afternoon about a pen and a phone, or the bang of a condemnation of intolerance by the UN of the radical state of Israel defending itself. Track the target. There is a reason all totalitarian governments always start their power grab by promising free government medical care in the name of humanity. When they control your access to the things that keep you alive, they control you.
Front sight, front sight Front Sight
Cheers.

True, but most of the time if you tell the doctor you are paying with cash you get a discount. The doctors actually prefer it that way because they get the money faster and don't have to pay the administrators to bill and collect. For example, to get an MRI through insurance could easily be billed by the doctor at $1,200. If you have $1,000 deductible, you have to pay $1,000 with the insurance, but if you tell the place you would rather pay up front with cash, you can expect to pay around $450. You can save a lot of money that way. For most things you can also go to those clinics in Walgreens, CVS, etc. They have a nurse there that can treat most common maladies and do vaccines for $100 or less by paying up front with cash.

There is no good from this law. It forces people to buy what they may have chose not to, like me. I don’t have health insurance, and I’ve been pretty stubborn about that my entire life. I will never buy it under the current law. It is plain crazy the way they all these federal agencies that are suppose to act independently of each other coordinating internal access to our most private records. To hell with that. I won’t comply, ever.

Equal death.

Yes.. my son has type 1. And our option didn't cover a thing until the 5000 was met. And then it covered 60 or maybe 80 %…

"Their costs just went up a lot more than 156 bucks"
If they hit the deductible, it's another $200 per month on top of that. Dental and vision coverage are usually gimmicky b/c it's more like prepayment than insuring against a peril. It's worth something, but sometimes you can get the same deal by shopping it instead of going within the DMO.

I strongly believe people should take charge and get what they want. $356 should not stop you. Overcoming a setback gives you momentum. Allowing yourself to be a victim of someone else's decision destroys momentum.

Or, how about the gov stays out of businesses. Why are hospitals forced to treat without payment? The cost gets passed on to others as a result. Thru taxation or higher fees and expenses etc. Hospitals are a business and gov has screwed it all up...like everything else. Forcing some to pay for others...Will kill us all in the end.

Yep.. those "affordable" plans have a 5000.00 deductible before they cover anything. We had to bump up to a plan that increases our premium 200a month with no change in benefit to stay away from it. Thanks Obama voters... CG.

Um I've never taken a dime from anyone and there have been times when 156.00 made a big difference. That's groceries, CG.

The $99 will be negligible compared to this group's AGI's anyway.

Their deductible went up and they dropped their dental and eye care. Their costs just went up a lot more than 156 bucks. The problem is that Obama should have stayed out of it. The Feds have caused major pain for a lot of people.

"The bad thing is that it is hurting the people it promised to help."
I agree in some cases.

"He is working hard and his wife wants to stay home cause child care is expensive but thanks to all the government "help" she has to get a part time job."
Wait, she has to get a job because an expense increased $156/ month? She could make that just economizing and fixing up stuff and selling it every now and then. Him doing a PT job or side projects would blow away $156/mo. I agree with the principle that PPACA set them back, but I can't stand the notion of someone changing her whole life plan over 156 bucks. I would say the same thing if she were moving from a job she hated to one she loved that paid $156/mo less. I think she should do whatever she loves, work hard at it, support him working hard, and almost like magic having a happy wife will cause his income to increase by way more than $156/mo over the next few years.

This situation is what we were expecting.

The Good:
The good thing is we have a system to spread the risk that doesn't depend on people being responsible. Under the old system, responsible people who were sick and had insurance tied to jobs sometimes stayed in jobs they wouldn't have otherwise. That lack of labor mobility is a huge unseen cost. If the irresponsible people got sick and didn't have insurance or money, the hospital treated them and charged other people.

Also we had the problem of more diseases being predictable by genetics. You can only save for them, not insure against them. This new system spreads that risk in the same way we could back when we couldn't predict those diseases.

A few years ago I had an employee who went with another company b/c he had a heart condition, and I didn't offer a group health plan. Now the healthcare issue would not have been part of his job decision.

The Bad
They sold this as if the gov't could come in like magic and take charge of middle-class healthcare purchases. This is a horrible mindset to promote. They also implied that somehow we could provide care for people who are already sick and don't have insurance at no cost. They also imply that you can tax the rich to pay for middle-class healthcare expenses, which is morally wrong but also mathematically incorrect.

Maybe *the ugly* should be now we have a public debate about all kinds of healthcare decisions. It would be reasonable to debate my Taco Bell consumption. It would be reasonable to debate people who want medical tests that are costly and not recommended or tests/procedures that put a fetus at risk. This takes up time that should be spent debating gov't issues.

So it's really a mixed bag. I think they *should* have not done this shotgun approach and should have encouraged price transparency. They also could have stopped tax policies that encourage employer-sponsored health plans. I would have liked them to encourage "term" health contracts that operate like "term" life with the idea that middle-class people would build enough wealth to mostly self-insure by the end of it. I mentioned that one in passing to my Congresswoman, and she didn't even understand it, despite being a very smart person. So many people have a mindset of wanting hand-holding from large organizations, instead of thinking of ways to handle things by themselves..

Exactly Circuit. The bad thing is that it is hurting the people it promised to help. He is working hard and his wife wants to stay home cause child care is expensive but thanks to all the government "help" she has to get a part time job.