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.
Again, if a person decides to spend more money on health insurance that's their choice, but it is irrational to blame the ACA when they refuse to participate in the exchanges that offer lower prices and subsidies that would lower the cost of the insurance.
What part don't you understand. NOT everyone QUALIFIES FOR A SUBSIDY.
If they don't qualify, there is no need to put your identity at risk. No wonder you people need help. When it's you robbing others you have no problem with it.
Yep, and many rich people will get on the ride. It's funny how democrats don't get it... morons.
Self-employed people have always taken advantage of the tax code. This is really nothing new. Should we start using people assets like their saving accounts, 401K's, and home equity in determining who gets a tax break and who doesnt? You are starting to go down a slippery road here which ends up taxing everyone more for health care including getting rid of the tax write off and making Medicare recipients pay more. Republicans understand this as well as Democrats that why no one talks about it.
Why blame the employer? Employees offered insurance as a way to attract good employees. They were not required to offer insurance prior to Obamacare, post Obamacare they can pay a fine and opt out completely. That leaves the employee responsible for getting their own insurance.
Insurance costs have risen, employers, who are already insuring with a small amount from the employee will either make their employees pay more or drop it all together. Paying the fine will be less expensive than paying premiums. Others who are near 50 employees will not hire or go above 50.
So once again, if an employer drops work sponsored coverage, it is a business choice that they made in order to save money. So once again, if employers start dropping employer coverage in droves, it has nothing to do with the ACA and all to do with the business bottom line.
What part don't you understand. NOT everyone QUALIFIES FOR A SUBSIDY.
If they don't qualify, there is no need to put your identity at risk. No wonder you people need help. When it's you robbing others you have no problem with it.
Who is getting robbed? Why not go on the lowest price bronze plan if your paying the full freight. Congress could also change the law extending subidies to 500% of FPL which would minimize the impact or add another metal level. The biggest problem is health care is expensive and the subidies arent really all that lavish at about $3,000 per year.
So once again, if an employer drops work sponsored coverage, it is a business choice that they made in order to save money. So once again, if employers start dropping employer coverage in droves, it has nothing to do with the ACA and all to do with the business bottom line.
If a law like the ACA causes businesses to take courses of action that hurt voters, those voters will blame the law. Most reasonable people understand that businesses can get caught between a rock and a boot by laws like this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Huh no, the employer mandate has nothing to do with that. Which the point I brought up.
In terms of the non compliant insurance plans, that mostly phony issue is over. Sure there will be a few whining stories mostly from conservatives lying about the impact of the law, but this mass cancellations fiction that never happened, that problem is over.
The people saying they were going to pay more mostly were uninformed and being tricked by their insurer.
Very few people will actually pay more if they go to the federal exchange and get the subsidies.
Got to love the internet - you get to call me a liar, which I doubt you would dare to do otherwise - I have one of those plans (see quote below) and I can tell you that the issue was not phony with individually purchased plans and it will not be phony with employer purchased plans. People like me will not be whining, we will be VOTING. Remember that when the Dems get a royal shellacking.
If you think that large scale cancellations of individual plans was fabricated you are seriously delusional.
I'll allow that if you believe everything HHS and the President say, hook line and sinker, no capacity for thinking on your own, then yes, you might believe that the delay of the employer mandate has nothing to do with the political fallout from the individual mandate. But I ask you, and I do expect an answer, IF the broad cancellations of individual plans was a phony story then WHY did Mr. Obama delay for 2 years the ACA minimum standards for those plans last March?
I have to say, I don't think much of people who call people liars when they are safely behind the anonymity of the internet - it is no less than cowardly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
The hitch is in the ACA minimum standards. My policy will not meet those standards because it does not cover birth control prescriptions.... probably other reasons, but that is the one I know about. When the individual mandate took effect (actually just before, due to insurer's enrollment policies), insurers started dropping non-compliant plans. They will do the same when the employer mandate takes effect.
I chose that policy because it was a good deal and suited our needs. Purchasing birth control outside the plan is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Once the employer mandate kicks in I will likely lose that coverage and have to purchase more expensive coverage that does not suit our needs as well.
My coverage is grandfathered because I have had it since before they even started discussing the ACA, but it is unlikely that my insurer or employer will choose to maintain non-compliant coverage for just a few employees who chose it early enough to be grandfathered.
Again, if a person decides to spend more money on health insurance that's their choice, but it is irrational to blame the ACA when they refuse to participate in the exchanges that offer lower prices and subsidies that would lower the cost of the insurance.
So once again, if an employer drops work sponsored coverage, it is a business choice that they made in order to save money. So once again, if employers start dropping employer coverage in droves, it has nothing to do with the ACA and all to do with the business bottom line.
If a law encourages businesses to take action, then how the hell can you not blame the law for them taking action. Are people really this nieve?
Thats like saying if you raise the speed limit to 65 from 55, and then give people tickets who drive 55, that its your fault if you go 65 and wreck because you could have gone 55.
What part don't you understand. NOT everyone QUALIFIES FOR A SUBSIDY.
If they don't qualify, there is no need to put your identity at risk. No wonder you people need help. When it's you robbing others you have no problem with it.
Yes, some don't, but there is a difference between the prices in the exchanges. And the off exchanges individual insurance market plans. So choosing to go off exchange may cost a person more money.
Exchanges Have Cheaper Metal Plans than Major Off-Exchange Carriers in 35 out of 39 cities
On average the least expensive bronze plans offered by the four off-exchange insurers were 45% more expensive than the least expensive bronze plans offered on the exchanges.
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.
