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.
For the wonky among us, this is an absolutely outstanding video featuring a reporter from Kaiser Health on the new legislation, the effects thereof, and issues surrounding it.
This gal really knows her stuff - about 38 minutes:
For the wonky among us, this is an absolutely outstanding video featuring a reporter from Kaiser Health on the new legislation, the effects thereof, and issues surrounding it.
This gal really knows her stuff - about 38 minutes:
If you're interested in the subject, you won't get bored.
Thanks for this. It was interesting.
Repeal taxes on the wealthy, rework other tax models like HSAs, basically anything to help people who already have money keep more of it. Nothing about broader networks, provider choices, lower premiums or deductibles, better health care. Do I have that right?
Repeal taxes on the wealthy, rework other tax models like HSAs, basically anything to help people who already have money keep more of it. Nothing about broader networks, provider choices, lower premiums or deductibles, better health care. Do I have that right?
Ryancare gets young, healthy people into private insurance. The unprofitable rural poor and older people will have to pay more or go without if they can't get into Medicare or Medicaid.
The plan largely fails to account for the fact that insurance is priced locally, not nationally.
With the tax credits favoring the young, it looks like private insurance is trying to poach the most profitable segment of the Medicaid customer base.
Ryancare gets young, healthy people into private insurance. The unprofitable rural poor and older people will have to pay more or go without if they can't get into Medicare or Medicaid.
The plan largely fails to account for the fact that insurance is priced locally, not nationally.
With the tax credits favoring the young, it looks like private insurance is trying to poach the most profitable segment of the Medicaid customer base.
While leaving the least profitable segment to be covered by the taxpayer as is already the case. This is just another taxpayer subsidy to the insurance industry.
How long can they charge someone who had a lapse in coverage the extra 30%? Forever? How big of a lapse do they have to have in order to have to pay that extra 30%? What if they signed up for a health sharing ministry because they got priced out of the market? Will they never be able to buy health insurance again due to that extra 30%?
Does this bill do anything to address the cost of health care?
What about employer group plans? Will they check on each new employee to see how long they were without health insurance between jobs for group plans also?
My DIL changed jobs: quit on Friday and started on Monday, and her new employer insurance did not kick in for 90 days. Cobra Mandatory??? She also covers my daughter because her employer insurance was very, very BAD. Penalty for both of them?
Another aspect. Medicare. I stopped working at 62 before the ACA. It would have cost us $1,000 a month for me to be put on my husband's employer plan. Unaffordable. I went without insurance until I aged into Medicare. Fortunately, right at the exact time ACA was enacted. So, would my Medicare be increased by 30% for going without health insurance for 3 years? I only have Original Medicare with no supplemental or private health insurance company to charge me an extra 30% for being uninsured. Oh, wait, I will get a Voucher instead to buy my own insurance on the open market? Yeah, right, Hello, circular file.
The 30% surcharge is just for a year. So figure if you pay $1k/month on your premium, you'll be paying an extra $3,600 (over the course of a year) to make up for the fact that you skipped out on 2+ months of insurance. Now the question is, is that more or less than what you would pay in the individual mandate? Remember the individual mandate is prorated - you skip 3 months, you only pay the fee for 3 months, not for the full year. And the max penalty is $2,500 for a person making $100k opting out a full year. Hmm.. $3,600 vs. $2,500 - hard one.
So tell me how this is any better than the mandate, and for whom is it better? And before you say "the insurance companies" - not really. It just incentivizes people to skip out on insurance as long as possible, and their max penalty is capped at a year.
The 30% surcharge is just for a year. So figure if you pay $1k/month on your premium, you'll be paying an extra $3,600 (over the course of a year) to make up for the fact that you skipped out on 2+ months of insurance. Now the question is, is that more or less than what you would pay in the individual mandate? Remember the individual mandate is prorated - you skip 3 months, you only pay the fee for 3 months, not for the full year. And the max penalty is $2,500 for a person making $100k opting out a full year. Hmm.. $3,600 vs. $2,500 - hard one.
So tell me how this is any better than the mandate, and for whom is it better? And before you say "the insurance companies" - not really. It just incentivizes people to skip out on insurance as long as possible, and their max penalty is capped at a year.
two issues here, your figures change a great deal if you input a single person without coverage for a year with a $50,000 AGI, their ACA penalty would be $992.00 but under Trumpcare the penalty would still be $3,600.
As with most other issues, Trumpcare benefits higher wage earners and younger, healthier people. I think it was foolish for them to think no one would notice.
two issues here, your figures change a great deal if you input a single person without coverage for a year with a $50,000 AGI, their ACA penalty would be $992.00 but under Trumpcare the penalty would still be $3,600.
As with most other issues, Trumpcare benefits higher wage earners and younger, healthier people. I think it was foolish for them to think no one would notice.
Yes, I just used $100k because most people in this country don't make that much. So even at that high of a salary, the ACA mandate is a better deal. For those making less, the ACA penalty is a MUCH better deal.
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.
