King v Burwell (ACA Subsidies) Decision Announced

[purplesky]

So it sounds like the Republicans are still not giving up on destroying and blowing up the ACA even after this supreme court decision.

What are the chances that a newly elected Republican president will be able to pull off a full repeal of the ACA?

This seems like the most important issue for many people in this community who use the ACA for early retirement.

I am not trying to make a political comment but since I am planning to use the ACA in about 5 to 7 years to retire early I am just concerned.

Hopefully the Mods will allow discussion on the political procedures involved that a newly elected Republican President would use to do a full repeal.

This seems like the biggest real threat to the future of the ACA and this happens very soon.

 

[pb4uski]

WADR, let's stay away from politics and let the thread continue.

Some actively like going it alone. Bob McConnell, 60, of Fort Mill, S.C., describes himself as an investor who is generally well off. Married and with two children, he says he saves money by haggling directly with doctors and labs over fees. He also objects to the law on philosophical grounds, seeing it as an intrusion on his privacy.

“Effectively, I am self-insuring,” he says. At his local pharmacy, he uses coupons he couldn’t apply if he had a plan through the Affordable Care Act, he says. “It costs less than the pharmacy benefit plan I was covered under as the copays were steep and I had to pay full retail without coupons for a couple essential name-brand products.”

I can't believe people are so naive. What this guy is doing may work for minor maladies, but if he or his wife or his kids have a significant health event that requires hospitalization and/or surgery he will be out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that a cat or HDHI policy would cover for a relatively modest premium.

 

[Nunthewiser]

There are lots of people living in places with no TV and no internet. There are lots of low income people (who this would help the most) who I would bet know nothing about the law at all. And the ones who do, most likely dont understand 90% of it. Hell, I only understand about 25% of it.

Re ignorance of the ACA- just before I FIREd from Lockheed Martin I told many of my co-workers what I was doing (managing my MAGI and getting a juicy subsidy based on my pension). They were gobsmacked. They had no concept that there could be a way to live independently of the overpriced HI offered by the company. These were engineers and other edumacated people.

 

[jim584672]

"Self insure" is a joke, maybe if you have millions. Once they see no insurance the hospital marks up the bill big time. A $700 aspirin becomes a reality. How they get away with this astonishes me.

 

[Which Roger]

Re ignorance of the ACA- just before I FIREd from Lockheed Martin I told many of my co-workers what I was doing (managing my MAGI and getting a juicy subsidy based on my pension). They were gobsmacked. They had no concept that there could be a way to live independently of the overpriced HI offered by the company. These were engineers and other edumacated people.

I don't think it's ignorance as much as lack of applicability to the person. Most people have reasonably-affordable, employer-provided health insurance, and aren't looking to ER in the near future, so they have little reason to learn about things like subsidies and exchanges. I'm well-versed on the ACA, because it may benefit me as an ER. However, there are many laws about which I am ignorant, but it's not because I have my head in the sand. It's because the law doesn't really affect me, so I focus my learning efforts elsewhere.

 

[samclem]

So it sounds like the Republicans are still not giving up on destroying and blowing up the ACA even after this supreme court decision.
. . .
I am not trying to make a political comment

This made me laugh. Wow.

 

[purplesky]

This made me laugh. Wow.

No comment.

 

[Mulligan]

I disagree. I dont watch the news at all and I cant think of any place other than this forum where Ive heard about ACA at all. Ive never heard any friends talk about it. If I wasn't on this forum, I dont think I would know anything about Obamacare at all.

There are lots of people living in places with no TV and no internet. There are lots of low income people (who this would help the most) who I would bet know nothing about the law at all. And the ones who do, most likely dont understand 90% of it. Hell, I only understand about 25% of it.

I cannot believe Utrecht that you would seriously think a good many people do not understand the law. People are smarter than you give them credit for...Hmm, I better think again. I have talked with 5 of my college educated friends in last couple days and they thought the SC was deciding whether Obamacare should be overturned or not. Didn't know anything about this exchange subsidy thing. Or also I am remembering 2-3 years after ACA (before exchanges were set up) was passed about 50% of a polled US population thought it had been overturned already. Maybe you are right!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NW-Bound]

I don't think it's ignorance as much as lack of applicability to the person. Most people have reasonably-affordable, employer-provided health insurance, and aren't looking to ER in the near future, so they have little reason to learn about things like subsidies and exchanges. I'm well-versed on the ACA, because it may benefit me as an ER. However, there are many laws about which I am ignorant, but it's not because I have my head in the sand. It's because the law doesn't really affect me, so I focus my learning efforts elsewhere.

+1

People I know either are old and on Medicare, or young and covered by insurance at work. They know diddly-squat about ACA. The only people I discuss ACA with are on this forum.

 

[Texas Proud]

You'd have to also consider the cost of the government [-]fine[/-] tax [-]responsibility payment [/-], too, right? But it still could be a better deal.

Would you have to pay it You would have health insurance...

 

[purplesky]

So it sounds like the Republicans are still not giving up on destroying and blowing up the ACA even after this supreme court decision.

What are the chances that a newly elected Republican president will be able to pull off a full repeal of the ACA?

This seems like the most important issue for many people in this community who use the ACA for early retirement.

I am not trying to make a political comment but since I am planning to use the ACA in about 5 to 7 years to retire early I am just concerned.

Hopefully the Mods will allow discussion on the political procedures involved that a newly elected Republican President would use to do a full repeal.

This seems like the biggest real threat to the future of the ACA and this happens very soon.

Hey Mods. Please delete this post. I guess this issue of a full ACA repeal might be discussed at a future date.

I shouldn't have even brought it up.

 

[MichaelB]

I shouldn't have even brought it up.

I couldn't agree more.

We all know that discussing partisan politics leads to divisive and hateful talk. That's not us, and is why it is discouraged. We're a friendly bunch here and like to talk about early retirement.

 

[GTFan]

Millions of Americans are declining to sign up for the ACA, even if they have to pay penalties.

Many are unable to afford premiums (though some may be eligible for subsidies) but believe they can pay cash or find other ways to pay or find programs which offer health care to those without insurance.

Meet the Health-Law Holdouts: Americans Who Prefer to Go Uninsured - WSJ

But some have the means to pay premiums yet refuse for philosophical reasons:

How is it that this lady gets $35 doctor visits?

For millions, arranging treatment through cash, barter and charity is still better than paying for insurance. They include Lisa Khechoom of Glendale, Calif., who refuses to buy coverage. She says she pays a flat $35 for a doctor visit and often substitutes prescriptions with cheaper natural remedies for herself, her husband and their children.

Must be nice living in CA, didn't think healthcare was that cheap there. The folks that make a conscious decision to not carry insurance while exposing assets are rolling the dice IMO. Plenty of people do it (they also buy lottery tix I suppose), but that ain't me.

I am curious to see how serious the repeal fight will be if we do get a Republican president next year. It seems pretty obvious to me that only a minority on the right really wanted the subsidy decision to go the other way, and given that that law will be covering many more people by 2017 and that Republicans may not have coalesced around an alternative plan after repeal, where does that leave the ACA?

Just speculation I know, but I'm not sure that any faction will have enough oomph to replace it with something else. Too many people will either benefit or know someone that does benefit from the law's effects, and as we've seen with the gay marriage ruling and all the families that know someone that's gay etc., once you reach that tipping point it's pretty much over. The fights over and eventual acceptance of both Social Security and Medicare come to mind here.

No political slant implied here, just a casual thought about what might realistically happen given our current fractured government.

 

[DonL]

+1



People I know either are old and on Medicare, or young and covered by insurance at work. They know diddly-squat about ACA. The only people I discuss ACA with are on this forum.

For the most part it doesn't seem the ACA was really thought of as to early retires or real low income people



Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Ronstar]

This thread is closed due to some members centering the discussion around politics.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum