Second installment on ACA for those that like to read tea leaves...

[LARS]

Looks like Price will be Sec. of Health. Here is a link to what Price proposed re: ACA in 2014. Once again, only for information not for discussion. And, again, Mods feel free to delete if inappropriate...

http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tomp...Act%202015.pdf

[gauss]

Great link Lars -- Do you know off hand if the full text of this summary is available somewhere too?

-gauss

BTW the NPR Hear and Now show aired a segment today (Nov 29 2016) offering their analysis too of the Tom Price appointment.

[LARS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gauss Great link Lars -- Do you know off hand if the full text of this summary is available somewhere too? -gauss BTW the NPR Hear and Now show aired a segment today (Nov 29 2016) offering their analysis too of the Tom Price appointment.

Haven't hunted around Price's website, but I would think that would be best bet. Let me know if you find more. Thanks.

[Texas Proud]

I did not read the whole thing.... but a few thoughts...

Looks like the credit does not take into account income... so no need to try and keep income low to get more credit...

I did not see if you could keep your kids on your plan...

I did not see if pre-existing conditions were not to be considered...



Is there anywhere that has scored this compared to Obamacare? Since it allows people who work to opt out and get credits I think this could cost more than what we have...

[LARS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Looks like the credit does not take into account income... so no need to try and keep income low to get more credit...

Appears to be solely age based from first quick read...

[Youngster]

Very quick read here, especially after I saw the $3000.00 tax credit for 50 and over. I like it.

[mamadogmamacat]

Yes Tom Price's plan credits are solely age based. There is something about additional credits for pre-existing conditions, so I assume accounting for those in the premiums will be allowed but not outright denial of coverage as was generally the case in pre-ACA days. It's early and who knows if what emerges will look anything like his plan, but I have a measure of confidence in the man at least. He is my congressman and a good surgeon. I had tendonitis surgery close to 20 yrs ago at his practice.

[Sue J]

I hope they consider a higher credit for over 60. The current premiums take a huge jump from 60-65.

Thanks for posting. We are in a no panic mode right now, just interested in seeing how they plan to change what we've got with ObamaCare.

[MichaelB]

By my count this is not the second installment, it is the fifth. That is, if we're talking about threads discussing changes to the ACA. AFAIK no legislation has yet been proposed. No problem with this thread, as long as it sticks to health care and insurance (and stays away from the political speculation).

[LARS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB By my count this is not the second installment, it is the fifth. That is, if we're talking about threads discussing changes to the ACA. AFAIK no legislation has yet been proposed.

Was MY second installment.

[easysurfer]

Watched the CBS Evening News. Looks like Price supports rolling back coverage for pre-existing conditions along with abolishing expansion of Medicaid under ACA.

[MichaelB]

WADR, snippets from the evening news are not legislative proposals or policy initiatives. For a discussion to have meaning to us we should stick to actual proposals.

[aaronc879]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Youngster Very quick read here, especially after I saw the $3000.00 tax credit for 50 and over. I like it.

This just shows that no matter what is done, some people will like it and some will not. I think it's absurd to give subsidies based on age instead of income and i'm sure others disagree. Despite this bad change, the bill seemed reasonable overall.

[Just_Steve]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronc879 This just shows that no matter what is done, some people will like it and some will not. I think it's absurd to give subsidies based on age instead of income and i'm sure others disagree. Despite this bad change, the bill seemed reasonable overall.

^Agree^
Because I think giving handouts....Oh wait sorry subsidies should be asset based.

[bingybear]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronc879 This just shows that no matter what is done, some people will like it and some will not. I think it's absurd to give subsidies based on age instead of income and i'm sure others disagree. Despite this bad change, the bill seemed reasonable overall.

I think the idea of age based is that the premium cost is partially based on age. This might be considered a benefit in some kind of proportion to expected cost.

I was reading a summary of some version of Price's plan and it did talk about pre-existing conditions and high risk pools. If I recall it noted not rejection for PEC if one had continuous coverage. However, they could price you into the high risk pool.

[niven]

I see the tax credit is listed as refundable. Am I reading it right that it is per insured as well? So for a couple over 50, the credit would be $6000?

[Katsmeow]

As I understand Price's plan:

1. Yes, credits are age based. $3000 for 50+ though isn't a lot. His plan does not cap at all the premiums that can be charged. Currently, I think older people can only be charged 3x what younger one's are charged. Some proposals have suggested a 5x rate. Price's plan puts no limit on what can be charged.

2. His proposal on pre-existing conditions allows people to be covered at standard rates if they maintain continuous coverage. If there is a gap in coverage (example: person loses job and can't afford coverage for awhile) then they have to pay 150% of standard rate. They get back to standard rate after 18 months of continuous coverage. That is actually not that bad, but the real problem is that cost of coverage for older people is likely to be very high.

For example, I read an article where someone commented that on the marketplace in their locale the cheapest bronze plan for someone over 50 was about $8500 a year. I get private retiree insurance which is partially subsidized by DH's former employer. It covers me and our 2 young adult children -- the premium is over $18000 a year, most of which is for me.

(Note that $8500 premium for similar coverage would likely be far more expensive under Price's plan because now insurers are constrained to 3 times what young people pay. Under his plan, the sky is the limit).

3. There are no mandated requirements for what has to be covered. That can potentially result in lower premiums for policies that cover less. On the other hand, there may not be policies available with the coverage you want (or they may be priced extremely high).

4. Medicaid expansion is repealed without any replacement for it.

5. The employer tax exclusion for employer provided plans is lowered.

The overall gist of his plan is that it may save money for young, healthy people who like plans with lesser coverage and lower premiums.

For older people who may have significant health care needs, premiums would be unregulated with only a $3000 credit provided. For someone in that age bracket, I think it would significantly increase my health insurance budget.

6. Note that going on Medicare may not help later on. Price is an advocate of privatizing Medicare and providing only a voucher that would cover part of the cost. He has indicated that Congress will get to work on the Medicare part in about 6 months.

[Texas Proud]

The other thing that I wonder is if the credits are adjusted to inflation

I did not read anything to that point.... and if so that will save money over time...


Also, if it is not related to health care costs, it will also erode the benefit over time...


The exemption on taxes of SS is (IIRC) $25,000... and is not adjusted... so every year more and more people pay taxes on their SS.... I think I read where up to 85% of people will be paying in 10 or 15 years... I can see where 10 or more years down the road this will not be that good of of plan...


This is just speculation as I have not read the whole thing and do not know what is in there that might make this mute...

[MBSC]

From the OP's link:

Quote:

Sec. 114. Transfer of Required Minimum Distribution from Retirement Plan to Health Savings Accounts Allows for the transfer of the minimum distribution requirement from a retirement plan to an HSA and prohibits its inclusion in an individual’s gross, taxable income.

Long version:

Quote:

SEC. 114. Transfer of required minimum distribution from retirement plan to health savings account. (a) Transfer from retirement plan.— (10) REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION TRANSFERRED TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual who has attained the age of 70½ and who elects the application of this paragraph for a taxable year, gross income of the individual for the taxable year does not include a qualified HSA transfer to the extent such transfer is otherwise includible in gross income. (B) QUALIFIED HSA TRANSFER.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘qualified HSA transfer’ means any distribution from an individual retirement plan— (i) to a health savings account of the individual in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer, (ii) to the extent such distribution does not exceed the required minimum distribution determined under section 401(a)(9) for the distribution calendar year ending during the taxable year.

[gauss]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow As I understand Price's plan: ... 2. His proposal on pre-existing conditions allows people to be covered at standard rates if they maintain continuous coverage. If there is a gap in coverage (example: person loses job and can't afford coverage for awhile) then they have to pay 150% of standard rate. They get back to standard rate after 18 months of continuous coverage. That is actually not that bad, but the real problem is that cost of coverage for older people is likely to be very high. .

But do we know what standard rates are? (ie definition - not the amount)

My research of late shows that they are associated with medical underwriting. Historically they are not the best rates and not the worse rates, somewhere in the middle.

If there is a lower class (ie preferred rates) that the healthy people are assigned to, wouldn't that change the standard rates into a de facto high-risk pool if all the people who have continuous coverage who get sick are now assigned into the standard rate pool which the insurance company can price for?

My concern about health insurance is not about the premiums I pay when I am healthy, but what happens if/when I become sick.


edit: I have found what appears to be the full version of the Tom Price proposed legislation.

The additional details given in section 221 wrt limits on premium rates appear encouraging on a quick read.

I am still concerned, however, about the somewhat conflicting language in section 3. Note section 3 was not included in the pdf summary originally posted by OP.

-gauss