Current Administration vow to eliminating ACA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eucerin said:
White house directly went to supreme court for this. If it is succeeded, we - early retirees will have to pay big dollar for health insurance. Worse with some who has health issues (pre-existing condition)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...oy-the-entire-aca/ar-BB13JRok?ocid=spartandhp
Click to expand...

On the other hand, ACA increased the health care premiums of higher income early retirees so perhaps the ACA repeal will lower their premiums.

There are 2 sides to this issue.
 
samm said:
On the other hand, ACA increased the health care premiums of higher income early retirees so perhaps the ACA repeal will lower their premiums.

There are 2 sides to this issue.
Click to expand...

This is true.
The current ACA setup is great for my brother and I who save 22k yearly.
However having such disparities in premiums across different states for the same MAGI is not fair either.
I can't imagine any new setup wouldn't include a provision for pre existing conditions.
 
Dtail said:
This is true.
The current ACA setup is great for my brother and I who save 22k yearly.
However having such disparities in premiums across different states for the same MAGI is not fair either.
I can't imagine any new setup wouldn't include a provision for pre existing conditions.
Click to expand...

The problem is there IS no new setup in sight! Don't repeal without replace.
 
Something that I don't quite understand - could someone illuminate me?

It seems almost everyone on the forum that is under 65 just can't wait to have medicare, which will provide basic hospital care, then you get part B D part F G N etc... depends on how much more fancy care you'd need - then medicare advantages is another option.

What if we make medicare available to everyone at cost (whatever cost that the government pays for 65 crowd) - then samething with part B D F G N - whatever you want just pay.

With lot of people in the medicare pool (not just 65 crowd), would it bring the medicare premium cost down?
 
neihn said:
Something that I don't quite understand - could someone illuminate me?

It seems almost everyone on the forum that is under 65 just can't wait to have medicare, which will provide basic hospital care, then you get part B D part F G N etc... depends on how much more fancy care you'd need - then medicare advantages is another option.

What if we make medicare available to everyone at cost (whatever cost that the government pays for 65 crowd) - then samething with part B D F G N - whatever you want just pay.

With lot of people in the medicare pool (not just 65 crowd), would it bring the medicare premium cost down?
Click to expand...

Medicare spends about $11K per year per person. So ~$22K for a couple. I think buying in for under 65 is a reasonable idea, but perhaps not a great buy. It would take an awful lot of buy-ins to move the needle.
 
We just got a Medicare statement for an MRI. ILLED $450, Medicare paid $59, Sup paid $27. I’m not sure how this even covered the techs time much less the sunk cost of machines and facility. While Medicare for all sounds fine I can’t see it working at these payments.
 
jpeter1093 said:
The problem is there IS no new setup in sight! Don't repeal without replace.
Click to expand...

To be fair, BCBS/Anthem/Aetna aren't going anywhere and health insurance is actually regulated by the States (for better or worse), so they can keep all the Federal overlay regulations if they want. The biggest thing that would go away is the taxpayer subsidy for Exchange plans.
 
USGrant1962 said:
The biggest thing that would go away is the taxpayer subsidy for Exchange plans.
Click to expand...

Financially, yes. But I'd think that the protection for coverage for pre-existing conditions is a bigger impact for many, as it's Y/N on if you can get private non-group insurance at all.
 
Dtail said:
This is true.
The current ACA setup is great for my brother and I who save 22k yearly.
However having such disparities in premiums across different states for the same MAGI is not fair either.
I can't imagine any new setup wouldn't include a provision for pre existing conditions.
Click to expand...

The other interesting item to balance is that -at least in our area - it is not easy to find a provider that will accept ACA insurance. None of our current providers accept ACA insurance. I know this is not as high a priority as ensuring one can get insurance in the first place, but has to be considered.
 
jollystomper said:
The other interesting item to balance is that -at least in our area - it is not easy to find a provider that will accept ACA insurance. None of our current providers accept ACA insurance. I know this is not as high a priority as ensuring one can get insurance in the first place, but has to be considered.
Click to expand...

Yeah didn't think about that.
Took it for granted, as every provider by me accepts ACA.
 
Rustic23 said:
We just got a Medicare statement for an MRI. ILLED $450, Medicare paid $59, Sup paid $27. I’m not sure how this even covered the techs time much less the sunk cost of machines and facility. While Medicare for all sounds fine I can’t see it working at these payments.
Click to expand...

The change would have to start from hospitals, doctors and drug companies. without these changes, Medicare for all is impossible
 
I do like the idea of medicare for anyone who wants to pay. The 11k per year premium probably does not really cover the government cost.

In anycase , the House will never pass killing the ACA. It is here to stay , unless Bernie ends up in the oval office :rolleyes:.
 
samm said:
On the other hand, ACA increased the health care premiums of higher income early retirees so perhaps the ACA repeal will lower their premiums.

There are 2 sides to this issue.
Click to expand...
Yes, my health insurance was very affordable before ACA. Now it isn't.
 
Rustic23 said:
We just got a Medicare statement for an MRI. ILLED $450, Medicare paid $59, Sup paid $27. I’m not sure how this even covered the techs time much less the sunk cost of machines and facility. While Medicare for all sounds fine I can’t see it working at these payments.
Click to expand...

This x1000. My DW had spine surgery a couple of months ago and the first *big* bill was $184,000 and insurance (Tricare, which pretty much follows medicare) paid about $8,000. It really makes no sense to me.
 
samm said:
On the other hand, ACA increased the health care premiums of higher income early retirees so perhaps the ACA repeal will lower their premiums.

There are 2 sides to this issue.
Click to expand...

This is where I get into it with my brother. He boasts about getting a subsidy. I tell him, you’re welcome. I pay it.
 
USGrant1962 said:
Medicare spends about $11K per year per person. So ~$22K for a couple. I think buying in for under 65 is a reasonable idea, but perhaps not a great buy. It would take an awful lot of buy-ins to move the needle.
Click to expand...



Theoretically if they charged that much it would make Medicare more actuarial sound. As the under 65 crowd should be cheaper.
But then again the sickest folks are on the gold and platinum policies now and those costs are shifted to bronze... so maybe not.
 
ExFlyBoy5 said:
This x1000. My DW had spine surgery a couple of months ago and the first *big* bill was $184,000 and insurance (Tricare, which pretty much follows medicare) paid about $8,000. It really makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...



It also says god help you if you don’t have insurance to negotiate the costs down!!!!

Frankly I would like it if they offered a 50k deductible policy just to get their rates and pay everything myself unless I got the big C , heart attack etc.
 
Aerides said:
Financially, yes. But I'd think that the protection for coverage for pre-existing conditions is a bigger impact for many, as it's Y/N on if you can get private non-group insurance at all.
Click to expand...

This.

While it would be nice to have “affordable” health insurance (I don’t exactly think that the ACA or even the non-ACA individual plans are exactly a bargain), my biggest fear is a return to pre-ACA days when insurance companies denied whoever they wanted because of pre-existing conditions. Only a handful of states had laws that required guaranteed issue.

There have already been some states that have passed laws that mirror the ACA language and will require insurance companies to not discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions, offer coverage on certain conditions (like mental health coverage, I believe), and limit how much more an older person’s premium can be compared to a younger person’s premium. Other states have just said that insurers can’t deny insurance to people with pre-existing conditions and have not placed limits on how much extra those individuals could be charged.

I’m watching this lawsuit very closely because the outcome will help determine what state I reside in, or whether I have to try to work full time to get employer coverage or, more likely, leave the US for a better option.
 
neihn said:
Something that I don't quite understand - could someone illuminate me?

It seems almost everyone on the forum that is under 65 just can't wait to have medicare, which will provide basic hospital care, then you get part B D part F G N etc... depends on how much more fancy care you'd need - then medicare advantages is another option.

What if we make medicare available to everyone at cost (whatever cost that the government pays for 65 crowd) - then samething with part B D F G N - whatever you want just pay.

With lot of people in the medicare pool (not just 65 crowd), would it bring the medicare premium cost down?
Click to expand...


I wish that some of the politicians who were floating the Medicare buy-in option for age 55+ would have gotten more traction. It would have allowed people who wanted or needed insurance to purchase Medicare for a reasonable cost. Seems like it would have been a win-win situation for everybody.

Many in the 55-65 age range who want to retire early or just can’t find another job after being laid off could buy into Medicare so they could be insured, and avoid the exorbitant costs of the individual market. The program would be optional so if they had a better option (currently employed, covered under spouse’s plan), they wouldn’t have to participate.

It wouldn’t hurt the government, and may actually help to have younger and potentially healthier people in the Medicare pool, and they would be paying into the program so there shouldn’t be a giant cost burden.

And to your point, if you take some of the older and potentially “less healthy” people out of the private insurance pool, that should theoretically bring down the premium costs for the others in the individual market.

Seems so simple to me. My understanding is Obama had wanted to lower the Medicare age to 55 as part of the ACA (not a buy-in, just lower the age), but Joseph Lieberman, the CT senator, was dead set against it for some reason. Man, I wish that had gone through. Would have solved a bunch of my concerns...
 
jimbee said:
Medicare is also subsidized for most people.
Click to expand...
For those that have forgotten, the "Great Society" was a bold set of programs that aimed at improving Americans' everyday lives. This was a bygone era where people believed that Government should be run to serve the people it represents and not the interests of business or special interest groups.

Not only did it include Healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) but also housing, education, elimination of poverty, the environment, immigration, and Civil rights.
The last 50 years we have gone from this concept to an era of "government is the problem" with the idea that government should be run like a business. If this pandemic has done nothing else it has shown that our healthcare system in America is broken (along with a lot of other things). If the ACA is overturned it will be a tragedy for millions of Americans. I don't think anything is more important that the welfare of our citizens, not even profit and certainly not debt (as witnessed in just the last few weeks).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom