Paying others' ACA way
As a 63-year-old businessman who purchases his family's health insurance, I make a fair comparison to John Mier, 62, subject of the news story “Leetsdale man's letter to Obama read by president during broadcast news conference” (Oct. 23 and TribLIVE.com), who is thanking President Obama for his good fortune with health insurance. He should be thanking insurance ratepayers like me who are making his situation possible.
The president said I could keep the insurance I have. He failed, however, to mention that the equivalent policy under the Affordable Care Act will cost me 37 percent more than I currently pay for myself and my wife. So, $438 a month comes out of my pocket and goes into Mier's.
Mier also fails to mention the deductible he and his wife face under his new plan. For me to attain a significantly reduced rate under the ACA, I would be exposed to a $6,000-per-year deductible. He must figure his family will not require care during the ensuing year.
My guess is his total out-of-pocket expense will be higher under the ACA, as more and more health providers are requiring deductibles be met before they bill the insurance provider. He may have the $692 a month for the policy, but does he have $6,000 in cash to cover his deductible before the insurance kicks in?
So, Mr. Mier, send out some thank-you notes. There are 10 folks like me for every one like you with regard to the ACA.
Kent V. Hart
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- On right track
- Quarantine quandary
- Not ‘too stupid’
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- ‘Change’ promise kept
- Climate, guilt & the left
- Double standard? II
- Thanks, Vikings!
- Ford City police