Hopefully not. Hopefully most folks remember recent history and know better.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.I am NOT implying that ACA subsidies are the sole cause of the Deficit rising.
It’s largely semantics isnt it. $0 penalty.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
.... 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. ...
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.
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)?
All I know is that my health insurance premium went from $1500 a month to about $180 a month once I got on Medicare.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.
"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.
So, are you saying that the ACA & Medicare should have the same rules, coverage etc? Or that we need Medicare for all?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.
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.
So, are you saying that the ACA & Medicare should have the same rules, coverage etc? Or that we need Medicare for all?
Thanks
Murf
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.
I guess so, I think that Medicare for All would probably be the best overall solution, with no pre-existing condition underwriting.