"Affordable" Care Act - Yeah, Right.

[Alareth]

Hell, it may not even be a lie, are you sure it doesn't creep towards $12K with OT and such?

I actually tweaked the estimate of my income up to get to 11k. I'm currently averaging $900/mo

 

[Robrob]

According to the Kaiser site, with my current paltry income of 11,000 a year I don't qualify for subsidy.

The silver plan it uses for the price calculations is nearly 30% of my yearly income, the bronze is close to 20%

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[0][tobacco]=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

That's too bad. A friend of mine was laid off his IT job up North and recently moved back home to Florida. He was paying ~$1,200 a month for COBRA but with the ACA he will pay ~$250 a month for him and his 21 year old son.

 

[gnome]

Thanks, Gov. Scott!

Anyone want to lay odds that someone (perhaps even Gov. Scott himself) makes political hay about all the people who aren't getting helped by the transition to ACA? As in, the people that are in that position because the GOP wouldn't play ball?

 

[Unabogie]

I actually tweaked the estimate of my income up to get to 11k. I'm currently averaging $900/mo

Again, I really am sorry. I think it's unbelievable that red states refused to expand Medicaid, know that people like you would be screwed by it. Have you called your governor? Local radio stations? Written letters to the local paper? I don't see any way to help beyond shaming them into fixing this or you moving to a better place to live.

 

[gnome]

Gov. Scott is up for re-election in 2014. Good timing, IMO.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Not to mention that healthy young people are better off because even healthy young people want health coverage, even if they're not currently sick. When I was in my twenties my wife was in a union and we got health benefits. I was HUGELY grateful for that coverage, and I almost never went into the doctor's office.

I'm female. Perhaps there are young men that don't need regular health care, but when I was young, I needed annual exams, BC pill prescriptions, and various other semi-regular exams and treatments, including for minor injuries. Insurance would have been nice.

 

[Biscuit]

Does anyone know if a state that refused to set up an exchange or expand medicaid can, in the future, set one up or accept the expansion?

I am thinking these would be great issues for dems to run on.

 

[newyorkguy]

Does anyone know if a state that refused to set up an exchange or expand medicaid can, in the future, set one up or accept the expansion?
...

I'm quite sure they can and I'm sure it will be a political issue. There's an obvious disconnect here between voters in some of the states and the political leadership.

Over 60 percent of the Americans living in the Deep South support Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, according to the results from a new poll that surveyed a broad sample of people in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina....That public support stands in sharp contrast to the five states’ political leaders, who have resisted cooperating with health care reform at any cost. The GOP governors in each of those Southern states — Govs. Robert Bentley (R-AL), Nathan Deal (R-GA), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Phil Bryant (R-MS), and Nikki Haley (R-SC) — have refused to expand their Medicaid programs. Link

 

[Kestrel]

Does anyone know if a state that refused to set up an exchange or expand medicaid can, in the future, set one up or accept the expansion?

I am thinking these would be great issues for dems to run on.

At least two states that rejected Medicaid expansion had a change of heart. I suspect that more states will follow the lead of Arizona and Ohio in the future.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did you catch my link to the Kaiser website? Assuming Newton's Bit is in Santa Fe, it looks like he would not qualify for a subsidy based on:

Age 30
No kids
1 adult
Income $44,000
Zipcode from Santa Fe, NM.

That's a pretty good example of what you're talking about.

*Sigh* An income of $44K for a single person won't qualify for a subsidy, no - it's above the 400% threshold. But Newton's Bits previously claimed that his income was below the 400% threshold. I see no reason to assume that his information about himself is false, so I'm going off of what he said.

The Kaiser estimator is a good starting point, but it is an estimator. It doesn't have all the necessary information to perform the actual calculation. I happen to be in a position to know exactly how the calculation works. Exactly. I don't have Newton's personal information to do the calculation for him, nor would I want it. What I can do, however, is provide information on how the calculation is performed in actuality, and describe some of the complications that can occur. And I can use this to provide an experienced opinion that Newton shouldn't just take an estimator's guess at it as truth, and to suggest that he should go ahead and go through the real calculator... because it would be a shame to falsely assume you don't qualify for a subsidy when you actually do.

If you had read my post, perhaps you would have understood that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

According to the Kaiser site, with my current paltry income of 11,000 a year I don't qualify for subsidy.

The silver plan it uses for the price calculations is nearly 30% of my yearly income, the bronze is close to 20%

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[0][tobacco]=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

Nevermind. Other people already said it and it doesn't need repeating

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not to mention that healthy young people are better off because even healthy young people want health coverage, even if they're not currently sick. When I was in my twenties my wife was in a union and we got health benefits. I was HUGELY grateful for that coverage, and I almost never went into the doctor's office.

Subsidies are smaller for younger people though. Depending on age and income, the subsidies may not be much of a draw. Subsidies benefit older people more.

 

[Unabogie]

*Sigh* An income of $44K for a single person won't qualify for a subsidy, no - it's above the 400% threshold. But Newton's Bits previously claimed that his income was below the 400% threshold. I see no reason to assume that his information about himself is false, so I'm going off of what he said.

The Kaiser estimator is a good starting point, but it is an estimator. It doesn't have all the necessary information to perform the actual calculation. I happen to be in a position to know exactly how the calculation works. Exactly. I don't have Newton's personal information to do the calculation for him, nor would I want it. What I can do, however, is provide information on how the calculation is performed in actuality, and describe some of the complications that can occur. And I can use this to provide an experienced opinion that Newton shouldn't just take an estimator's guess at it as truth, and to suggest that he should go ahead and go through the real calculator... because it would be a shame to falsely assume you don't qualify for a subsidy when you actually do.

If you had read my post, perhaps you would have understood that?

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't disagreeing with you, only posting that link in support of what you wrote. For the record, 400% of the poverty level is $45,960:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1001/Obamacare-101-how-the-federal-subsidy-works-video

In Newton's case, even though he might be making slightly less than the 400% marker, Kaiser says he still won't get subsidies. I understood what you wrote, but was attempting to flesh it out a little as part of the discussion.

You can pull those claws back, Cat.

 

[Biscuit]

At least two states that rejected Medicaid expansion had a change of heart. I suspect that more states will follow the lead of Arizona and Ohio in the future.

AZ smartly took the expansion but refused the exchange.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't disagreeing with you, only posting that link in support of what you wrote. For the record, 400% of the poverty level is $45,960:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1001/Obamacare-101-how-the-federal-subsidy-works-video

In Newton's case, even though he might be making slightly less than the 400% marker, Kaiser says he still won't get subsidies. I understood what you wrote, but was attempting to flesh it out a little as part of the discussion.

You can pull those claws back, Cat.

My apologies for being quick to defend. I'm bristly today.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a lie. I'm in the process of buying new insurance at a considerable cost decrease here in Oregon.

It seems that nobody from Oregon has managed to actually enroll through the exchanges yet.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/in...on_some_significant.html#incart_more_business

 

[Emily's Cat]

It seems that nobody from Oregon has managed to actually enroll through the exchanges yet.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/in...on_some_significant.html#incart_more_business

The exchange isn't accepting Individual Market enrollees yet in Oregon. I'm not sure when they will begin, my recollection is that they're planning to open it to enrollees in November, but I haven't been keeping up with it.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

My anecdotal evidence: I didn't have healthcare. As of Jan 2014, I will. Obamacare is a huge success!

Wait, that's not how these things work, is it?

 

[eeyore1954]

It's a compromise. It's better than no healthcare reform at all, but worse than UHC. I'm with Magyar in that it astounds me conservatives are against the "free market solution" they championed a mere twenty years ago. Less, if you consider Romneycare is same solution as the ACA and the Heritage Foundation's plan, in all the key aspects.

Were conservatives in favor of RomneyCare? I never saw it implemented anywhere other than pretty liberal Mass.

 

[Neally]

Evidence please.

You have my doubts.

Two years ago, my insurance carrier raised my premium by 35 percent (though I avoided paying that large an increase by switching to another company). Large increases can happen with or without Obamacare.

LOL, it seems we still have some Obamacare caused increased insurance premium deniers.

Some reasons why your premiums may go up due to the ACA:

1. Existing health insurance policies often don't cover the same range of medical expenses (i.e. prescription drugs, physical therapy) as an ACA compliant plan. If your existing plan had less extensive coverage, you may see an increase in premiums.
   
2. Existing policies may not have a cap on out of pocket expenses. ACA plans cap these at $6,350 per year for an individual. If your plan did not cap out of pocked expenses, you may see an increase in premiums.
   
3. Insurance premiums are no longer dependent on pre existing conditions. If you were lucky enough to have none, you may see your costs go up.
   
4. Insurance premiums no longer depend on your sex. If you are male, you may see your costs go up.
   
5. The ACA limits how much premiums can vary by age. If you are young, you may see your premiums go up.

Que the deniers asking for more evidence.

Almost everyone will participate? Why on earth would they? Healthy young people are better off just paying the fine. And the point that cost is no longer dependent on health is exactly what drives the adverse selection problem.

Or better yet, just wait until they get sick, then get covered! Hey no pre-existing conditions denial! Wait for your house to burn down, then get home insurance. Is Obamacare wonderful?

Not everyone wants car insurance when they buy a car, either.

And fortunately they aren't forced by the federal government to get it. And they can chose what level of minimal coverage they want. Not so with Obamacare.