Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in my early 60's, retired, I have a private health insurance plan (not through an employer or the government); and have an income of $48,000 per year.
Quote:
House Republicans would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance if they did not have coverage available from an employer or a government program. Under earlier versions of the bill, the tax credits increased with a person’s age, but would not have been tied to income.
Backbench Republicans said the government should not be providing financial assistance to people with high incomes.
Accordingly, under the new version of the bill, the tax credits would be reduced and eventually phased out.
Does this quotation state that the tax credits which are/will be given to people who are insured by neither the government nor employers will eventually be reduced and then eliminated?
Reduced only for those with higher incomes. You are not in that category. The new AHA legislation is more generous to people with higher incomes.
Wash Post on this issue:
Quote:
The Republican plan would offer tax credits ranging from $2,000 per year for those under 30 to $4,000 per year for those over 60.
The full credit would be available for individuals earning up to $75,000 a year and up to $150,000 for married couples filing jointly.
The credits would phase out for individuals earning more — for each $1,000 in additional income, a person would be entitled to $100 less in credit, meaning a 61-year old could make up to $115,000 and still receive some credit.
The income-based phase-out of the credit allows the GOP plan to be funded without taxes on employer-provided insurance that had been considered earlier in the drafting process.
In another New York Times article, I read that the new Republican health care act is withdrawing the rule stating that insurance companies can't charge older customers more than three times what they charge younger customers, so the price could go up for the older customers as much as 30%.
If that happens, does the proposed new health care act plan to eventually withdraw the tax credits for non-government and non-employee insurance?
Only if your income is too high. See above.
Your premiums will go up, for sure, because of your age, but you will get the $4k tax credit to compensate. Too soon to know how plans in your area will be priced. That's up the insurers.
Fortunately, you are only a few years away from Medicare.
Judging from the KFF interactive, unless premiums drop considerably to compensate for the limited tax credit ($4k isn't much), insurance for older people in most parts of the country will be more expensive for equivalent plans.
One good thing - HSA deposits are doubled. Son is already talking about putting more in theirs.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 03-08-2017 at 11:40 PM..
Provider issues with ACA QHP's was low reimbursements and no guarantee of coverage b/c people weren't paying premiums. ACA reimbursements are as low as Medicaid, based on some reports.
Medicare pays much better than the QHP's, with reimbursements adjusted by region.
where's this stuff come from. Unless you have a true indemnity plan, and they are rare these days, plans will either follow the PPO or HMO model. This means that in network providers are contractually bound to accept the insurer's payments. Provider thinks they're too low? They leave the network.
I no of no ACA plan that pays as poorly as Medicaid. I don't even know of any that pay as low as Medicare. Providers won't accept such low payments.
If you have evidence (not based on anonymous sources), please provide. Otherwise, this is Fake News or Alternative Facts.
where's this stuff come from. Unless you have a true indemnity plan, and they are rare these days, plans will either follow the PPO or HMO model. This means that in network providers are contractually bound to accept the insurer's payments. Provider thinks they're too low? They leave the network.
I no of no ACA plan that pays as poorly as Medicaid. I don't even know of any that pay as low as Medicare. Providers won't accept such low payments.
If you have evidence (not based on anonymous sources), please provide. Otherwise, this is Fake News or Alternative Facts.
I read last year that BCBS Texas was paying healthcare providers 10% less than Medicaid.
Unliked our so-called POTUS, I don't traffic in fake news - just facts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbear99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
Provider issues with ACA QHP's was low reimbursements and no guarantee of coverage b/c people weren't paying premiums. ACA reimbursements are as low as Medicaid, based on some reports.
Medicare pays much better than the QHP's, with reimbursements adjusted by region.
where's this stuff come from. Unless you have a true indemnity plan, and they are rare these days, plans will either follow the PPO or HMO model. This means that in network providers are contractually bound to accept the insurer's payments. Provider thinks they're too low? They leave the network.
Reread what I said. No mention of providers not accepting payment.
There were issues of providers not joining networks and hundreds of accounts on this board of in-network providers not accepting or limiting QHP patients, similar to Medicare providers because of these low reimbursements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbear99
I no of no ACA plan that pays as poorly as Medicaid. I don't even know of any that pay as low as Medicare. Providers won't accept such low payments.
If you have evidence (not based on anonymous sources), please provide. Otherwise, this is Fake News or Alternative Facts.
Not fake news, not by a long shot. You haven't been reading this board long enough.
Quote:
In Dallas, Texas Blue Cross, in its Exchange plan, is paying 10 percent less than what Medicaid pays.
In addition, relative to low reimbursements, we've had numerous posts here which you can choose to discount as being "anonymous" from doctors and one, the wife of a doctor, all of whom have said ACA reimbursements are too low - below Medicare and often equivalent to Medicaid - so physician participation in these plans is limited. And then these physicians, naturally, who are in-network limit their patient load under such plans.
After four years of reading these posts and other substantiating links in many other posts (really - this is NOT my imagination) order of reimbursement is:
and often ACA vying with Medicaid for the lowest reimbursement level, depending on insurer.
One relatively current news report:
Quote:
Physicians are reluctant to speak to their decisions not to work with marketplace plans.
One family physician who works in rural northeastern Pennsylvania spoke with U.S. News on condition of anonymity. He has been a physician for more than 35 years, and says the administrative burden, paperwork issues and associated care costs for marketplace patients is more than the reimbursement he receives for treating them.
Reimbursement can be 30 to 50 percent less than what is offered through employer-provided plans.
That's why the hundreds of complaints on this board over the past few years on "in-network ACA providers" not accepting patient. Paltry reimbursements.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 03-09-2017 at 04:57 PM..
I read it first here on CD. Then using google, found info stating the same thing. Just because you haven't seen or experienced something doesn't mean that it isn't true.
There were issues of providers not joining networks and hundreds of accounts on this board of in-network providers not accepting or limiting QHP patients, similar to Medicare providers because of these low reimbursements.
In addition, relative to low reimbursements, we've had numerous posts here which you can choose to discount as being "anonymous" from doctors and one, the wife of a doctor, all of whom have said ACA reimbursements are too low - below Medicare and often equivalent to Medicaid - so physician participation in these plans is limited. And then these physicians, naturally, who are in-network limit their patient load under such plans.
That's why the hundreds of complaints on this board over the past few years on "in-network ACA providers" not accepting patient. Paltry reimbursements.
At last, something we can agree on.
Most of your "evidence" is either from weak published articles, or anecdotal. The anecdotal comments are not new. They've been coming in for years. Same things have been said about Medicaid.
Fact is that low cost insurance will always be narrow network these days. And providers will complain, as will insured. Nothing new here, except reporting it as something new.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unliked our so-called POTUS, I don't traffic in fake news - just facts
