Getting Your Financial Ducks In A Row Rotating Header Image


  1. Kathy Anderson says:

    One of the many problems with Obamacare is that it burdens a very small segment of the population — self-employed individuals and small businesses — with the costs of those deemed uninsurable by the insurance companies. This is grossly unfair. If we wanted to help those unable to get insurance because of illness, the burden should have been put on the broader population. Those with large employer insurance are not contributing anything while the self-employed have seen their insurance coverage deteriorate and their premiums escalate.

  2. KD says:

    You say your premiums increased. But lets flip the scenario. If you had cancer, you could not find “affordable” insurance before. Now you can. So there you go. The affordable care in the name ACA does not refer to all people or insurance premiums. It refers to/targets people who need care. I hope you get the point. “Credit check” example of California is so lame. Having credit or a credit history is a choice. Basing your car insurance on it is wrong because it engenders selection bias. I hope you could have mentioned that too.

    1. sraskie says:

      I appreciate your response. I also need to reiterate that as per the article I am NOT above helping people who need the coverage, for example your cancer scenario. What I do have a problem with is what if your person with cancer obtained it through smoking or a poor lifestyle? As per your words, that is a choice. A choice that consumers are now paying for. As far as the car insurance example, the example is spot on with the concept of adverse selection. Adverse selection is a statistically sound principle that every insurance company uses. And in this case every health insurer is using it to guard against those now who could not get coverage before due to health issues or poor choices. The concept being that as you add more and more people who are unhealthy and cannot get insurance the premiums have to increase because it places a burden on the system because those are the people that are more likely to need coverage and more likely to use the services that you and I are paying for through the act.

      Think of it this way, should you be responsible for somebody who’s been pulled over for drunk driving multiple times and their car insurance rates increase? Would it be fair for your premiums to increase because of that persons poor choices? I think you would agree the answer is No.

      Is it lame to say that now I have to pay for coverage that I don’t need myself such as maternity or birth control? Both of those scenarios are choices as well but unfortunately myself as well as millions of other people are paying for other people’s choices. Again, that’s adverse selection. If now those coverages which are choices are mandatory my premiums go up to cover those as does everyone elses.

      Even people who were not paying for health insurance before that are required to get coverage, although it might be affordable, they still have to pay for it and are paying for something that they didn’t want or need before – or else they are penalized via the tax.

      I cannot think of an example where I have had somebody actually show me their premiums have decreased. The other unintended consequence that I did not mention is that many employers have laid off or reduced employee’s hours so that they don’t have to comply with the Act. Now you’re looking at folks who had health insurance who can’t afford it because their employers reduced their working hours because it was too much of a burden on the employers.

      What makes matters worse, is that now you have people with full time jobs reduced to working less than 30 hours per week. Explain to me how that is affordable. Thank you again for your reply.

  3. Anne says:

    So I guess Medicare does not begin until one gets their SSA retirement benefits…I think people who live a healthy lifestyle should get “a tax deduction”; just my 2c ! @

    1. sraskie says:

      One qualifies to receive Medicare benefits at 65 regardless of if they’re receiving Social Security benefits or not.

  4. jim says:


Get involved!

Discover more from Getting Your Financial Ducks In A Row

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading