I'm upset and I don't own a Google Glass or know anyone who does.

Are these plans outlawed by the ACA, like the first set of plans you describe? Or have insurers merely stopped offering them of their own volition? I'm genuinely asking, as I don't know. I haven't heard of any limitations on deductibles imposed by the ACA.

If premiums do have to rise (because of the ACA), why? What are the increasing costs? Most arguments I've heard boil down to "my premiums went up, my coverage went down", but something's not adding up. The ACA has capped insurers' profits (to what extent this is effective remains to be seen), so I'm comfortable assuming that the alleged difference in cost isn't simply being pocketed. So where is it going? I can't answer that. The conclusion this brings me to is that either premiums are not going up, or coverage is not going down.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute.

You say Google Glass may contain medical devices, and as such should be protected by the ADA. If you tell someone to take off their Google Glass (w/ presecription lenses), you're discriminating against those with disabilities. Now, what if someone with a legitimate leg injury comes to the theater using a massive dildo as a cane. Can't turn them away either? What about if I glue prescription lenses to my dick and my girlfriend holds it in front of her eyes, using the whole apparatus instead of ordinary eyeglasses. Can't turn that away either? I mean, surely there's a line that gets drawn at some point. IANAL, but I'd imagine stuff like this ends up before a judge at some point. And to my dismay, judges have quite a bit of leeway in their interpretation of laws.

Are they enforcing this restriction consistently? Are they allowing people to bring other recording devices, like smartphones, into the theater?

What exactly is the restriction?
If it's "no recording devices", then they're enforcing it selectively and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording the movie", then they're enforcing it prematurely/incorrectly and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no glassholes", then that's rather arbitrary and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording devices aimed at the movie regardless of whether or not they are recording", then I suppose it remains to be seen what they'd do about someone sitting there with their phone aimed at the movie (but not recording).

I've worked as a freelance software developer with clients in the finance industry, but I would never say freelanced in finance. I freelanced in software development. I thought you meant that you freelanced in banking, not IT. In which case I pictured you spending weekends sitting at the door to your gold-filled vault, ala Scrooge McDuck, offering to loan your cash out to strangers at interest.

So previously your plan had no lifetime maximums and was open to people with pre-existing conditions, and now your plan has a lifetime maximum and no longer accepts people with pre-existing conditions? That's odd, because your previous plan didn't really exist before the ACA was passed, and your new plan is explicitly outlawed by the ACA.

This is all, of course, based on the assumption that you've actually seen declining levels of coverage... which... now seems quite shaky...

Some decent ideas. Figured I'd mention that, as we've had our differences on other issues in the past.

Mod parent up. This is the only insightful comment I've seen under this story.

How about the out of pocket maximums? Lifetime maximums? Every other detail that you've omitted? They've all stayed the same?

I didn't think so.

If your costs went up that significantly, then your coverage has changed dramatically. It's overwhelmingly likely that your previous policy had terrible coverage, coverage which doesn't meet requirements set forth in the ACA. Your costs have increased, but so has your coverage, comparably. If the increases you claim are accurate, then your previous policy was total shit and wouldn't have helped you much were you to actually need it for anything serious.

In short, you're complaining that passage of the ACA has forced you to upgrade your previous Fischer-Price insurance (which is a lot more like "no insurance" than it is like "today's insurance") so that your unpaid medical bills wouldn't be spread amongst the rest of us. Welcome to the world of personal responsibility and pulling your own weight.

Thank you for reminding me that I still mix up COBRA and CORBA.

How does one freelance in banking?

I'd argue that there's certainly plenty of wealth in this country. Net national wealth is $83.7T, so that's about $280k per person (or $301k per person according to a recent Credit Suisse Global Wealth report); most people wouldn't be complaining if their net worth was $280k --- most Americans today have a net worth that is less than $45k. While more prosperity is always nice, it's somewhat unreasonable to make baseless claims that redistribution of wealth is less needed than prosperity. While I can sympathize with the fact that redistribution of wealth may not be compatible with your personal ideology, it would probably be better for everyone if we could discuss these issues in terms of numbers and facts, not political preferences.

You appear to be suggesting that we keep the "pre-existing conditions" bit but eliminate the individual mandate. Do you have an explanation for why people would carry health insurance coverage while they're healthy instead of simply waiting to sign up until they need it?

Don't worry, the 1% have rigged society to ensure minimal economic mobility, which should be sufficient to prevent any significant growth in the number of parasites at the top.

Oh, you mean the other welfare class...