ACA Vs Medicare, Is this Fair?

[joeea]

I am NOT implying that ACA subsidies are the sole cause of the Deficit rising.

Hopefully not. Hopefully most folks remember recent history and know better.

 

[joeea]

It’s largely semantics isnt it. $0 penalty.

Not semantics.

The mandate exists in law. The penalty amount coult be changed without changing repealing the ACA - 'cause that's what happened. And it could be changed yet again if necessary.

 

[aja8888]

I am beginning to think ACA mandates are good for the country. It helps to pay for the subsidies that we try wherever possible to take advantage of. I noticed today that the Deficit is increasing, I think the number was $776b or so. People taking ACA plans seem to be increasing, so more subsidies are being paid. So for 2019 more money will be needed to offset them. I am NOT implying that ACA subsidies are the sole cause of the Deficit rising.

I think you mean to say the taxpayers are paying for the subsidies , not the mandates?

 

[Ian S]

That is not true... the mandate was principally a talking point to go along with no medical underwriting. In 2019 the penalty will be zero so there is effectively no mandate, yet ACA still exists, insurers are still writing busieness (in fact, some insurers who left individual health insurance are re-entering) and 2019 rate increases have been modest compared to recent years.

And after 2019? As the effects of the elimination of the mandate penalty start to be seen? Folks are going to game the system and the pool will become sicker and older which will lead to higher premiums. Folks who are eligible for tax subsidies will likely keep their insurance as the rest of us will be paying more in taxes to increase their subsidies. Lovely!

 

[Aerides]

I haven't looked lately, but does anyone have the actual data on exactly how many people opted out of insurance to take the penalty? And documented, researched estimates on how many more might opt out if there is no penalty?

Sure, "ooh no penalty" might sound like candy, but it also means dropping HI, so I don't know that it means a real flood for the exits.

You can count me in the pool of "I want health insurance and will buy it whether required to or no" which I kinda believe is true for a vast majority of those with means. No doubt, there are some unemployed healthy 32 year olds running around who will now take the penalty and gamble, but I'd be surprised if it has a truly meaningful impact on the overall number of ACA enrollees, healthy or otherwise.

I could be wrong, but that's because we're all just speculating here, dressing up our opinions as facts.

 

[Ian S]

I haven't looked lately, but does anyone have the actual data on exactly how many people opted out of insurance to take the penalty? And documented, researched estimates on how many more might opt out if there is no penalty?

Sure, "ooh no penalty" might sound like candy, but it also means dropping HI, so I don't know that it means a real flood for the exits.

You can count me in the pool of "I want health insurance and will buy it whether required to or no" which I kinda believe is true for a vast majority of those with means. No doubt, there are some unemployed healthy 32 year olds running around who will now take the penalty and gamble, but I'd be surprised if it has a truly meaningful impact on the overall number of ACA enrollees, healthy or otherwise.

I could be wrong, but that's because we're all just speculating here, dressing up our opinions as facts.

Here's a fairly recent article on the issue. They claim between 3 and 13 million fewer insured in 2020. I guess we'll know by 2020 what the trend is. However, it stands to reason that sicker folks will try to stay insured and healthier folks will be incentivized to take the risk of going without especially if they can sign up if and when they get really sick. That will mean a sicker costlier pool of people with Obamacare plans. Premiums will have to increase and then more folks will be tempted to take the risk or won't have a choice as they won't be able to afford the higher premiums.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/bl...impact-elimination-individual-mandate-penalty

 

[Fedup]

Here's a fairly recent article on the issue. They claim between 3 and 13 million fewer insured in 2020. I guess we'll know by 2020 what the trend is. However, it stands to reason that sicker folks will try to stay insured and healthier folks will be incentivized to take the risk of going without especially if they can sign up if and when they get really sick. That will mean a sicker costlier pool of people with Obamacare plans. Premiums will have to increase and then more folks will be tempted to take the risk or won't have a choice as they won't be able to afford the higher premiums.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/bl...impact-elimination-individual-mandate-penalty

From what I’ve read premiums have been increasing before Obamacare, after Obamacare. I think it’s regardless of mandate.

 

[Ian S]

From what I’ve read premiums have been increasing before Obamacare, after Obamacare. I think it’s regardless of mandate.

Well, the way I read the article is that they were attempting to determine the effect of the elimination of the mandate penalty. The increases in years past include all the contributors to premium increases. I would assume the 3-13% increase in premiums estimated in the article is due solely to the effect of eliminating the mandate penalty.

 

[ivinsfan]

Well, the way I read the article is that they were attempting to determine the effect of the elimination of the mandate penalty. The increases in years past include all the contributors to premium increases. I would assume the 3-13% increase in premiums estimated in the article is due solely to the effect of eliminating the mandate penalty.

You assume alot…..

 

[Texas Proud]

This has gone off the deep end....


But to the OP... there is zero penalty you HAVE to pay... none...


You can sign up for Part D now and pay the current premium OR you can sign up in the future and pay a higher premium.... no penalty at all...


Kinda like life insurance... it cost less when you are young and more when you are older....


AND, you make the choice of signing up in the future.... it is not required, so you make the choice to pay or not pay... much different than the way you presented it...

 

[pb4uski]

From Bloomberg:

It will cost the U.S. government almost $700 billion in subsidies this year help provide Americans under age 65 with health insurance through their jobs or in government-sponsored health programs, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The subsidies come from four main categories. About $296 billion is federal spending on programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which help insure low-income people. Almost as big are the tax write-offs that employers take for providing coverage to their workers. Medicare-eligible people, such as the disabled, account for $82 billion. Subsidies for Obamacare and for other individual coverage are the smallest segment, at $55 billion.

 

[pb4uski]

.... However, it stands to reason that sicker folks will try to stay insured and healthier folks will be incentivized to take the risk of going without especially if they can sign up if and when they get really sick. ...

The last part is nonsense... they can only sign up once a year for two months... if they get "really sick" in January then they'll be either dead or bankrupt by the time they get to the next open enrollment period.

Doctor: You have cancer and it needs to be treated right away.
Patient: Can we wait six months until the next Obamacare open enrollment period?

 

[DCdave]

Medicare is such a good deal for all us that I am not going to complain about such things. The amount we pay for premiums is peanuts compared to the expenses that seniors pile up.

Agree 100%.
The number of people I encounter that complain about the government and healthcare but then grouse that Medicare is not almost free blows me away.
Hello, it is not free but is, as you say, a good deal.

 

[ivinsfan]

Agree 100%.
The number of people I encounter that complain about the government and healthcare but then grouse that Medicare is not almost free blows me away.
Hello, it is not free but is, as you say, a good deal.

That's the problem when you give some people with good assets the chance to get "Free" insurance by working the system. The minute they have to spend some of their money to insure their health, all of a sudden it's too pricey and not fair to everyone.

If this description fits you, you might think about why you have this attitude and if there is anything rational about it.

 

[VanWinkle]

Finding "unfair," inequitable, or inconsistent things in the tax code and other laws/regulations could turn into a full time j*b. To me, it seems more useful to ask two questions about each policy:
1) Is it good for the country?
2) How can I personally benefit from this (or reduce my losses from it)?

Bingo!!

 

[marko]

Agree 100%.
The number of people I encounter that complain about the government and healthcare but then grouse that Medicare is not almost free blows me away.
Hello, it is not free but is, as you say, a good deal.

All I know is that my health insurance premium went from $1500 a month to about $180 a month once I got on Medicare.
Works for me.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

The good thing about Medicare is it is consistent, Basically the main BASIC cost is fixed for all for a year and provides the same services to all. Then the choice for extra services via Advantage or Medigap is optional. No complaints there.

But really to keep everything consistent and fair, the same rules should apply to all. It would save a lot of second guessing, interpreting and speculation. The cost and funding would also be easier to nail down or everyone involved. I know I am guilty of misinterpreting the rules for ACA, Medicare and all the other convoluted options. No matter how many times I read the instructions. That is why the collective opinions of a group such as this are quite invaluable.

 

[Murf2]

"But really to keep everything consistent and fair, the same rules should apply to all. It would save a lot of second guessing, interpreting and speculation. The cost and funding would also be easier to nail down or everyone involved."

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Murf

 

[ShokWaveRider]

"But really to keep everything consistent and fair, the same rules should apply to all. It would save a lot of second guessing, interpreting and speculation. The cost and funding would also be easier to nail down or everyone involved."

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Murf

Seems obvious to me, recipients of HC services would know their costs on an annual basis, and know all recipients in the same age/income group would be paying the same. The Managers of the plan (Healthcare/Medicare for all) would know the revenue and costs and could plan accordingly.

 

[ivinsfan]

Seems obvious to me, recipients of HC services would know their costs on an annual basis, and know all recipients in the same age/income group would be paying the same. The Managers of the plan (Healthcare/Medicare for all) would know the revenue and costs and could plan accordingly.

Next up World Peace....

 

[Murf2]

Seems obvious to me, recipients of HC services would know their costs on an annual basis, and know all recipients in the same age/income group would be paying the same. The Managers of the plan (Healthcare/Medicare for all) would know the revenue and costs and could plan accordingly.

So, are you saying that the ACA & Medicare should have the same rules, coverage etc? Or that we need Medicare for all?

Thanks
Murf

 

[pb4uski]

All I know is that my health insurance premium went from $1500 a month to about $180 a month once I got on Medicare.
Works for me.

You're sort of comparing apples with oranges though... the $1,500/month includes hospitalization insurance and the $180 does not... that was paid through Medicare taxes over your working career.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

So, are you saying that the ACA & Medicare should have the same rules, coverage etc? Or that we need Medicare for all?

Thanks
Murf

I guess so, I think that Medicare for All would probably be the best overall solution, with no pre-existing condition underwriting.

 

[DCdave]

All I know is that my health insurance premium went from $1500 a month to about $180 a month once I got on Medicare.
Works for me.

Agree, it is a good deal.

 

[Fedup]

I guess so, I think that Medicare for All would probably be the best overall solution, with no pre-existing condition underwriting.

Is it ok, as long as you agree to have all your wealth confiscated.