Supreme Court to hear arguments tomorrow on ACA Subsidy

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfudtuckerpucker We bought this type of plan last year, from Assurant Health. It was much cheaper for us, but was not Obamacare-approved (didn't cover pregnancy LOL, and substance abuse), so they warned us that we could be fined for not having "adequate" insurance.

We're still on a pre-ACA plan too. First they extended the plan by 11 months, then we got a letter from Anthem saying something about guidance from the government being that they could still offer the plan.

Not sure if that means we'll be paying penalties or not, but we'll find out soon enough. Even with penalties we STILL save many thousands in premiums over any of the ACA plans.

[wrigley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Edit: I mean is there any chance that we now just go to single payer like almost every other civilized nation in the world?

Do you really think having our government TOTALLY control our healthcare is a good thing?

Mike

[HFWR]

So far PACA has only had peripheral effects; currently covered by empl*yer insurance, and have subsidized retiree HI from a former empl*yer.

[Fermion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrigley Do you really think having our government TOTALLY control our healthcare is a good thing? Mike

Don't they already do that for people over 65?

[wrigley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Don't they already do that for people over 65?

They sure do. Some say not very well though.

Mike

[Fermion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrigley They sure do. Some say not very well though. Mike

Perhaps, but if you try to take away Medicare from a senior citizen, prepare for denture marks on your hand. They may grumble but they sure seem to like it over nothing.

[poorcarver]

The real issue for many of us is that if they somehow "gut" the ACA in particular the guaranteed right to buy regardless of health history then a lot of folks are going to be in trouble. My wife is a cancer survivor and could not buy private insurance (other than through her employer) on the strength of the ACA she retired. We don't qualify for a subsidy, we just need the ability to buy.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Money +1 I am COBRAing for a while anyway because my excellent former empl*yer's health plan is much less expensive than a platinum plan under the ACA. But I decided all the politics surrounding this issue would not stop me from living my dream. If I had to, I'd move to a state where the coverage was available. So I retired last week, politics be dam*ed.

I do not know what a platinum plan would cost... but my COBRA was over $1700 per month.... I went bronze...

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by poorcarver The real issue for many of us is that if they somehow "gut" the ACA in particular the guaranteed right to buy regardless of health history then a lot of folks are going to be in trouble. My wife is a cancer survivor and could not buy private insurance (other than through her employer) on the strength of the ACA she retired. We don't qualify for a subsidy, we just need the ability to buy.

Guaranteed issue is part of every replacement/alternative plan I've read about. Details obviously matter, but this issue is thoroughly understood and appreciated.
Many people are painting this as "ACA or nothing," which is obviously a false dilemma. Whether the thing changes now or later, it's gonna change. Even its strongest proponents acknowledge that, and have sometimes modified the law's implementation as a stopgap means to try to make it work. It's probably better to really fix things the right way.

[Brat]

Don't fool yourself into believing that because you don't receive a subsidy that it won't impact what you pay for insurance.. it will because many lower income healthy (typically young) people will not subscribe. Their participation is helping to pay for colder, sicker subscribers. Insurance rates will increase, including what employers are providing.

Hospital systems will loose money forcing them to increase their rates across state lines.

[Helen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by poorcarver The real issue for many of us is that if they somehow "gut" the ACA in particular the guaranteed right to buy regardless of health history then a lot of folks are going to be in trouble. My wife is a cancer survivor and could not buy private insurance (other than through her employer) on the strength of the ACA she retired. We don't qualify for a subsidy, we just need the ability to buy.

Bingo. There was a guy who posted on here in the pre-ACA days. He lived in Florida, had $3 million saved for retirement but couldn't retire because he couldn't get health insurance. He had some minor problem that prevented him from being insured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Perhaps, but if you try to take away Medicare from a senior citizen, prepare for denture marks on your hand.

Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning!

[Texas Proud]

Man... better post before it gets closed.... getting too political on this thread...

To answer the OP question... no, it does not change my decision... I have not yet retired, but now work sporadically... I do consulting work and have had 4 different policies in the last year and half... this is my second time on Obamacare...

I was thinking that I would be able to get a subsidy last year, but sold funds to get a few years of expenses in bond funds and the good distributions put me way over.... so I did not get it...

This year I am hoping for the same and do not have to sell anything... however, if the subsidies are overturned I still need insurance... before ACA I would be refused because I answered a question 'has the doc talked to you about diabetes'.... yes, he has... he said I am pre-diabetic..... I take medication to help control my glucose level and have cut out some things I used to eat all the time...


I do not see how insurance will double or more... I am paying over $800 now for family... and they do not have to pay for anything until I meet my $6K deductible...

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat Don't fool yourself into believing that because you don't receive a subsidy that it won't impact what you pay for insurance.. it will because many lower income healthy (typically young) people will not subscribe. Their participation is helping to pay for colder, sicker subscribers. Insurance rates will increase, including what employers are providing. Hospital systems will loose money forcing them to increase their rates across state lines.

I do not think so.... rates did not go down when the law took effect... why would they more than double if the young did not sign up Their premiums are not as high as the old folks... it is funny that there is an age component in the exchange but not at work... I remember a lot of the young people coming to complain how expensive insurance was at my old firm... but the rate was the same if you were 24 or 64.... not so in the exchange....

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrigley Do you really think having our government TOTALLY control our healthcare is a good thing?

Whether it is or not, what's the alternative? Surely not the (prior) unaffordable status quo...at double the cost per capita vs the average of every other developed nation. No other citizens pay nearly as much as Americans, for middling outcomes.

[Silver]

This article was in the Daily Beast this morning; "The Technicality That Could Save Obamacare". The article states that the four primary plaintiffs have no standing because they either already have government sponsored insurance (veterans) or otherwise qualify for a subsidy, and therefore cannot demonstrate "harm".

The article believes the entire case may be dismissed for lack of standing. You would think if that were true it wouldn't have gotten this far.

The Technicality That Could Save Obamacare—and the Supreme Court’s Reputation - The Daily Beast

[wrigley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Perhaps, but if you try to take away Medicare from a senior citizen, prepare for denture marks on your hand. They may grumble but they sure seem to like it over nothing.

I agree with you. Grandfather Medicare but don't let the government get their paws on healthcare for all Americans. I'm not crazy about John McCain but I do think he had a valid idea when he talked about the voucher system to pay for healthcare. I also believe that affordable healthcare should be available for every American regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Mike

[wrigley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Whether it is or not, what's the alternative? Surely not the (prior) unaffordable status quo...at double the cost per capita vs the average of every other developed nation. No other citizens pay nearly as much as Americans, for middling outcomes.

My perfectly healthy 23 old year son ventured onto the Healthcare.gov website to take a look around at health insurance. $239.00 a month with a $4000 deductible was the best he could do. Needless to say he elected to pay the penalty. Prior to the ACA he had a catastrophic plan that primarily covered major medical issues but he was also able to routinely see a doctor if he wished with affordable/manageable co-pays. $92.00 a month was his premium. If you are young and healthy the ACA shafts you because that is the only way they can afford to pay for the not young and healthy!

Mike

[Fermion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrigley My perfectly healthy 23 old year son ventured onto the Healthcare.gov website to take a look around at health insurance. $239.00 a month with a $4000 deductible was the best he could do. Needless to say he elected to pay the penalty. Prior to the ACA he had a catastrophic plan that primarily covered major medical issues but also was able to routinely see a doctor if he wished with affordable/manageable co-pays. If you are young and healthy the ACA shafts you because that is the only way they can afford to pay for the not young and healthy! Mike

But that 60 year old who has a few health problems and no kids likely paid tens of thousands of dollars for your 23 year old son's pubic education via taxes. He didn't have a lot of choice when forced to pay for your child's education.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrigley I also believe that affordable healthcare should be available for every American regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrigley My perfectly healthy 23 old year son ventured onto the Healthcare.gov website to take a look around at health insurance. $239.00 a month with a $4000 deductible was the best he could do. Needless to say he elected to pay the penalty. Prior to the ACA he had a catastrophic plan that primarily covered major medical issues but he was also able to routinely see a doctor if he wished with affordable/manageable co-pays. $92.00 a month was his premium. If you are young and healthy the ACA shafts you because that is the only way they can afford to pay for the not young and healthy!

I don't know what to say reading these two statements. I'd like to see the plan that meets both of your criteria, recognizing actual underlying health care costs in the USA. You might as well wish for free healthcare for all...

$239/mo w $4K deductible is a great deal relative to the cost of health care - well below average cost.

How did you think health insurance worked? How do you think Soc Sec & Medicare work?

[tfudtuckerpucker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpeirce Not sure if that means we'll be paying penalties or not, but we'll find out soon enough. Even with penalties we STILL save many thousands in premiums over any of the ACA plans.

You're right- it's cheaper to buy that insurance and pay that penalty, than buy from ACA. At least it was for us.

Our neighbor is a single mom with 4 kids, and she doesn't qualify for ACA subsidies, since her income is slightly above the threshold. So she gets an "exemption" from ACA insurance requirements. So she can buy "nonqualified" insurance without paying a penalty. It's just another weird twist in this law. It's sad because health insurance is still unaffordable for her family, and the ACA does nothing to help.