I had a delightful conversation with a health Insurance company rep this morning

Not really.

Nick and his family of nonsmokers, aged (53, 52, and 19) can get their bronze Obamacare coverage from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois for a couple hundred bucks less than the $853 a month you claimed:



This is far superior insurance to the short term plan that Nick apparently had last year. This bronze Obamacare plan from BCBS is different from Nick's old plan in that it:

* is available to people with pre-existing conditions;

* doesn't have lifetime caps;

* doesn't exclude kids when they turn 19;

* includes preventative care;

* is renewable; and

* doesn't allow the insurer to cancel the policy a month after someone in the family gets sick.

In the end, it's not really important which policy Nick chooses. But there's can be no debate that Obamacare is delivering to Nick and his family far superior coverage for less money ($549 vs. $570) than his old plan did.

So what was your point in brining up Nick again? You wanted to illustrate another person benefitting from the law? Well done!

I have no problem with eliminating our tax code's health insurance distinction between married business partners and non-married business partners. Let's get rid of that one too.

That's hardly an argument against the wise policy in Obamacare to end the tax discrimination between couples who work for S-Corps and couples that don't work for S-Corps. I'm sorry, I don't share your tears.

Treat 'em the same way, I say.

Chilcoots quote:

“Wow, that's a lot of traveling. You made it from Indiana to both Illinois and Ontario, Canada in only a few weeks? After having been all the way to Bartlett, Illinois in late February? You must be exhausted!

So what county does your completely real, totally not inflatable friend "Nick" live in? We've been trying to find out since you first told of his extremely-verifiable plight back in January.

The Cook County part of Bartlett, which forkushV reasonably assumed two months ago before you ran away to the far hinterlands of Columbus, Ohio? Or the DuPage County part of Bartlett, which apparently has even lower Obamacare premiums than the Cook County ones forkushV found?

Chilcoot’s quote:

“Boilerman can't explain the phony rates his friend Nick came up with to attack Obamacare.”

Boilerman, it's way past time for you to admit the obvious here, that your friend "Nick", for whatever reason, didn't tell you the truth about his Obamacare premiums, that they're far less than what you said he told you in January.”

Forkie’s quotes:

That leaves a maximum 22% of Republicans who might have already been affected by Obamacare, and probably much less. So how did they get to 39%? Lying. Lying like Boilerman's friend Nick. Lying the the Koch funded Boonstra ads. Lying like the GOP State of the Union response, with a woman who never even looked at ACA prices.
• delay with litigation all the way to the Supreme Court;
• delay by refusing to set up marketplaces in red states;
• delay by refusing to fund healthcare.gov;
• sabotage by inventing phony horror stories about the law. (See Boilerman's scumbag friend Nick.)

Alanleroy’s quote:

Well I believe I have finally solved this little mystery of why Nick's PPO Bronze 006 Plan from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, for zip code 60103 for ages 54, 53 and 19 cost almost $850....and we don't even have to assume the Nick family are smokers who actually live in Chicago.

It turns out there are two Bronze 006 Plans from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois. One is the 'Choice' plan that Forkush has continually held up as the reason Nick and Boilerman are liars and despicable human beings. It sells for $573 per month. He claims Nick could not possibly have purchased a Bronze 006 PPO plan from Blue Cross for $850.

The second plan is the Blue PPO Bronze 006 plan. No 'Choice' in this plan. And you'll note in Boilerman's original post, nowhere does he specify the 'Choice' plan. Although I'm guessing the real 'choice' in this plan has something to do with the Doctors who actually accept it as payment. I'll bet Nick had to choose this plan because..well he probably wanted to keep his doctor.



Boilerman could list much more trash talk from the boys.

Such a victim!

Somebody call a medic!

This has nothing to do with S-Corps. It applies to all married business owners regardless of how it's legally organized. This has nothing to do with wise policy or tax discrimination between couples who work for S-Corps and couples that don't work for S-Corps. That's so lame I can't believe you're even mentioning it.

Couples who don't own a business don't have many of the costs and risks and taxes we do. They only pay half the Social Security and Medicare taxes we pay. If you really want to treat us the same then just give me back that 7 1/2% of my income and we'll call it even for losing our group plan. But you don't really want to treat us the same. Nor does the federal government.

Let's be honest about what this is really about. It's a numbers game. It's about forcing participation in the individual health insurance market at the expense of a class of small business owners. It has nothing to do with taxes or fairness. Nothing whatsoever.

They needed people to sign up....lots of people. What easier way than just cancelling hundreds of thousands of perfectly good group health insurance policies and forcing those people to buy individual plans? I doubt these numbers are even going to be reflected in the cancelled policy numbers because those policies still exist. Some business owners are just no longer able to purchase them. By the same token, no doubt we'll be added to the numbers of new insurance sign ups.

We had insurance we liked, we can afford to pay for insurance, we need insurance. We have no political power. We're the perfect mark. We have no choice but pay $2000 more for essentially the same insurance...or hire 1 employee or get divorced. Hardly the options something called the 'affordable care act' should offer.

But you go on in your fantasy world where small business owner couples and regular employed couples are treated the same. Tell those millions of regular employed couples their group plan is being cancelled and they have to move to the individual market just like us....oh and pay a couple of grand more a year for health insurance. Fair is fair, no?

Did you look at Nick's policy? I think it was likely a group policy from United Healthcare not a 'Short term plan' from United Security as you claim. I say that because United Security does not offer a PPO plan of any kind while Boilerman states it is a PPO. United Security has nothing like the deductibles and out of pocket limits mentioned. United Healthcare has Group PPO deductible plans very similar to the one Nick claimed. So if that's the case, then virtually none of the items you mention are actually valid...except of course the preventive care. Most of the other items don't apply to group plans.

We've already discussed that there is a cheaper Bronze 'Choice' PPO 006 plan from Blue Cross that is a couple of hundred less than the $850 Bronze PPO 006 plan. The cheap 'Choice' plan has about 1/2 of the doctors participating compared to the Bronze PPO 006. Maybe there's a good reason for that. If the Cheap Choice plan didn't include Nick's doctor then he may have gone with the Bronze PPO 006 because he really wanted to keep his Doctor just like the President Promised.

It may very well be true that Nick is paying thousands more for a plan with higher deductibles and higher out of pocket costs and virtually the same benefits. Poor Nick. He was a standup guy. I'm really glad he doesn't smoke.

You'll have to forgive me, throughout this thread we've been forced to deal with Boilerman's limited description of Nick's old plan:



As you can see, it was a "United Security PPO" plan.

United Security and United Healthcare are different companies. The one Nick was with is a small regional insurer based in Illinois. United Healthcare, the one this alanleroy's talking about, is part of United Healthgroup in Minnesota, the largest heath carrier in the country.

You can guess all you want, Boilerman says Nick was with United Security.

Of course United Security's plan has both a deductible and a limit.

Same page 2 from the United Security application:



Next time you expect me to read stuff to you, it'd be nice if you left a shiny apple on the desk.

So the horrible Obamacare $853 rate was "cheapest I could find that was comparable" for old Nick? As long as he ignores the $550-$573 rates, right?

He may his own reason for choosing the higher rate, but when he blames that on Obamacare, he's back to being a lying sack. (But I am happy for him that he and his whole family doesn't smoke!)