Trump to gut ACA via executive order

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now that I don't have my subsidy anymore do I still have to have insurance? Without my subsidy my monthly bill is 350. That's a lot of money for me. What about next year.

The liberal media, in trying to make Trump look as bad as possible, has misleading headlines all over the place. The premium insurance subsidies are NOT going away. It's only the cost-sharing subsidies, which were ruled illegal by a court, that are being discontinued. You will continue to get taxpayer assistance to pay for your insurance, just like this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really... you think the millionaire execs were only making this much because of ACA? I have an idea.. why don't you tell Trump and Rs to curb their pay and bring down the cost. Maybe that would help ALL Americans. What do you say to that? I'm all for it. You think Trump will go for it?

Before Obamacare: Health care execs made millions, and the lower middle class could afford a once-a-year vacation.

Under Obamacare: Health care execs still make millions, and the lower middle class can't afford a once-a-year vacation.

See the difference?

I doubt Trump will make things better, but it's weird that liberals can't understand that folks have good reason to be unhappy with their ridiculously crappy with their health care plans under Obamacare.

Are you f*n kidding me? Prior to ACA MILLIONS didn't have insurance. Seriously, what the hell do you think ACA was trying to address. The lower/middle class were being helped by the subsidies, but only if their governor accepted the medicaid expansion. And several red states didn't expand their medicaid program so their lower/middle income people couldn't afford the healthinsurance. Please tell me you knew this part.

I'll say it again: If someone needed to tighten their belt to pay for the poor, it should have been the rich health care execs, not the lower middle class.

And I'll say it again, who do you think will make the CEOs tighten their belt so that everyone could afford health insurance? HINT: it sure hell isn't Trump or the Rs.

Probably not. But we also know for sure it's not the Dems because they did otherwise. They actually had the opportunity, and they chose to screw over the lower middle class instead.

Dems voted for the subsidies. Rs fought against it. Dems wanted to cover millions of uninsured. Rs never put forth any alternative to do this. Who exactly was trying to screw over the lower/middle class in this scenario?

Obamacare is called Obamacare because it's Obama's health care plan. It was passed by Ds and Is in the Senate - no Rs. The Dems own it.

Yes, that's right. Still shows that it was the Dems that tried to help the lower/middle class and not the Rs, which is what was being addressed not "who owns ACA".

NO. The Dems tried to help the lower class, and in the process screwed over the middle class. All they did was switch who can afford medical care. Now the lower class get all the free care, and the middle class has to go without.

Define "middle class" because for a family of four with a HHI of $97K, they could get subsidies.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/finding-health-insurance/maximum-income-obamcare-premium-assistance/

Also, those in the middle class (and others) who couldn't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions were also helped by ACA.

I'm thinking of middle class as a couple of high school grads, each earning $35,000 for a combined income of $70,000 and living in the DC suburbs. Let's say they're in their 50s and their kids have grown. They are paying around $1500 to $2000 PER MONTH on a take home income of maybe &4500. Not only is that unaffordable, but they likely have to cough up the first $12,000 of expenses before the deductible is met. So....in a bad year...maybe $35,000 total medical expenses on take-home pay of around $55,000. Completely unaffordable. But under Ocare statistics, this couple is counted as "insured" - a success!

As far as your point that some people were helped, I agree. It's just that liberals ignore (or deny) the harm it has causes the middle class who previously were able to afford insurance.

Yea but the mother of that family got cancer in her 20s and is just thankful to have any coverage. At least they stand a chance of not losing their house, again, should she have a reoccurrence. She is also thankful that after she pays $12,000 in expenses the rest of her medical expenses are met, that’s more than the family had before.

OK, but she has $12,000. What about the working class couple making $70,000, who can no longer cover their bills now that they have to pay $15,000 in premiums and now can't afford insurance. There are plenty of stories like that too.

The point is that Obama was so eager to give free health insurance to the working poor through expanded Medicaid and cost-sharing subsidies that he caused a lot of lower-middle class people to lose the ability to pay for their own skyrocketing insurance. THEY are the ones who have become the uninsured. There is something wrong with liberal socialist policies when poor people get better care - for free - at the expense of moderate earners who can't afford it for themselves.

[Anonymous]

I had to drive 30 minutes to an Urgent Care facility with blood gushing out of my finger like Old Faithful because I couldn't afford the ER. In the meantime, poor people go to the ER for much lesser injuries - instead of Urgent Care - because it's more convenient and SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR IT.

We need a policy that poor people have to pay something toward their own care (which we accomplish by eliminating the illegal cost-sharing subsidies that make everything free for many). I'd say $15 for the ER and free at Urgent Care may "help" them use the ER more appropriately. It's ridiculous to send a tax-paying woman paying $800 a month for insurance to UC because the ER would be $2000 while those on total government support sit there in the waiting room to get the service for free. They are NOT entitled to other people paying for everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now that I don't have my subsidy anymore do I still have to have insurance? Without my subsidy my monthly bill is 350. That's a lot of money for me. What about next year.

The liberal media, in trying to make Trump look as bad as possible, has misleading headlines all over the place. The premium insurance subsidies are NOT going away. It's only the cost-sharing subsidies, which were ruled illegal by a court, that are being discontinued. You will continue to get taxpayer assistance to pay for your insurance, just like this year.

DP - "if not for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all" - CP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NO. The Dems tried to help the lower class, and in the process screwed over the middle class. All they did was switch who can afford medical care. Now the lower class get all the free care, and the middle class has to go without.

Define "middle class" because for a family of four with a HHI of $97K, they could get subsidies.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/finding-health-insurance/maximum-income-obamcare-premium-assistance/

Also, those in the middle class (and others) who couldn't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions were also helped by ACA.

I'm thinking of middle class as a couple of high school grads, each earning $35,000 for a combined income of $70,000 and living in the DC suburbs. Let's say they're in their 50s and their kids have grown. They are paying around $1500 to $2000 PER MONTH on a take home income of maybe &4500. Not only is that unaffordable, but they likely have to cough up the first $12,000 of expenses before the deductible is met. So....in a bad year...maybe $35,000 total medical expenses on take-home pay of around $55,000. Completely unaffordable. But under Ocare statistics, this couple is counted as "insured" - a success!

As far as your point that some people were helped, I agree. It's just that liberals ignore (or deny) the harm it has causes the middle class who previously were able to afford insurance.

Did you even look at the link? A couple making $50K a year, no kids, would get subsidies. And ACA limits the premium for people making under 400% of the poverty level, which your example falls into. The most they can be charged is 9.69% of income. Is this a real life example? I'm doubting it.

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really... you think the millionaire execs were only making this much because of ACA? I have an idea.. why don't you tell Trump and Rs to curb their pay and bring down the cost. Maybe that would help ALL Americans. What do you say to that? I'm all for it. You think Trump will go for it?

Before Obamacare: Health care execs made millions, and the lower middle class could afford a once-a-year vacation.

Under Obamacare: Health care execs still make millions, and the lower middle class can't afford a once-a-year vacation.

See the difference?

I doubt Trump will make things better, but it's weird that liberals can't understand that folks have good reason to be unhappy with their ridiculously crappy with their health care plans under Obamacare.

Are you f*n kidding me? Prior to ACA MILLIONS didn't have insurance. Seriously, what the hell do you think ACA was trying to address. The lower/middle class were being helped by the subsidies, but only if their governor accepted the medicaid expansion. And several red states didn't expand their medicaid program so their lower/middle income people couldn't afford the healthinsurance. Please tell me you knew this part.

I'll say it again: If someone needed to tighten their belt to pay for the poor, it should have been the rich health care execs, not the lower middle class.

And I'll say it again, who do you think will make the CEOs tighten their belt so that everyone could afford health insurance? HINT: it sure hell isn't Trump or the Rs.

Probably not. But we also know for sure it's not the Dems because they did otherwise. They actually had the opportunity, and they chose to screw over the lower middle class instead.

Dems voted for the subsidies. Rs fought against it. Dems wanted to cover millions of uninsured. Rs never put forth any alternative to do this. Who exactly was trying to screw over the lower/middle class in this scenario?

Obamacare is called Obamacare because it's Obama's health care plan. It was passed by Ds and Is in the Senate - no Rs. The Dems own it.

Yes, that's right. Still shows that it was the Dems that tried to help the lower/middle class and not the Rs, which is what was being addressed not "who owns ACA".

The Dems tried to help the lower class at the expense of the middle (WORKING) class, you jackass.

The Dems wanted subsidies to continue to the middle class, too, you JACKASS!!!! See how that works. You probably have no clue who qualifies for subsidies and that for a lot of the middle class, the insurance companies cannot charge them more than a certain percentage of their income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:also thankful that after she pays $12,000 in expenses the rest of her medical expenses are met, that’s more than the family had before.

OK, but she has $12,000. What about the working class couple making $70,000, who can no longer cover their bills now that they have to pay $15,000 in premiums and now can't afford insurance. There are plenty of stories like that too.

The point is that Obama was so eager to give free health insurance to the working poor through expanded Medicaid and cost-sharing subsidies that he caused a lot of lower-middle class people to lose the ability to pay for their own skyrocketing insurance. THEY are the ones who have become the uninsured. There is something wrong with liberal socialist policies when poor people get better care - for free - at the expense of moderate earners who can't afford it for themselves.
Again, working class couple making $70K with two kids would get subsidies, and their premium cannot be more than 9.69% of their income. So your $12K premium on an income of $70K example is completely made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OK, but she has $12,000. What about the working class couple making $70,000, who can no longer cover their bills now that they have to pay $15,000 in premiums and now can't afford insurance. There are plenty of stories like that too.

The point is that Obama was so eager to give free health insurance to the working poor through expanded Medicaid and cost-sharing subsidies that he caused a lot of lower-middle class people to lose the ability to pay for their own skyrocketing insurance. THEY are the ones who have become the uninsured. There is something wrong with liberal socialist policies when poor people get better care - for free - at the expense of moderate earners who can't afford it for themselves.

Again, working class couple making $70K with two kids would get subsidies, and their premium cannot be more than 9.69% of their income. So your $12K premium on an income of $70K example is completely made up.

Honestly, I will say that I didn't know this fact until I did some research. I don't think most people know about the part where the premiums cannot be more than a certain % for most middle class families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's a great thing. i want it to collapse.

It was poorly thought out and rammed through. It's been a disaster. No need to throw more money at it. Everywhere this type of government run healthcare is tried, it fails.

Do you know what else was failing, even worse? The healthcare system that preceded the ACA.

That was true for some, not true for others. ACA created an entire new class of "underinsured middle-class Americans." My friend's SIL is a doctor, and he said he saw a big switch in his patient base - many more low income people (getting free care) and much fewer middle income people (who can no longer afford it).

That is correct. The ACA has huge funding for public health clinics which are a good thing but are concentrated to serve specific populations. MOCO has plenty and the patient base seems to match uninsured and Hispanic so guess what? Illegals. CA has billions in ACA. Same trend.

Pay maybe $25 if that for a visit and middle income are screwed. Obama also didn't allow association group plans for small businesses. That insurance should be allowed and easily sold across state lines. Note people buy extra medicare coverage through AARP group plans.

What Trump is doing is unraveling accounting that Obama co-mingled.

[Anonymous]

FYI my friend's kids [mid twenties] pay $750/month each for Obamacare silver. No subsidy.

Earn just above any subsidy line.

[Anonymous]

When POTUS is bragging about the stock market going down...

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/919160558712172544

[Anonymous]

Until ACA implodes Democrats and Republicans will not get together to work something out.

At this point both sides are too committed to their respective ideologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without robust consumer protection, it is buyer beware. I hope people who choose to buy cheap insurance policies across state lines are willing to spend a lot of time reading all the fine print so they actually know what their cheap policy covers. Will it be there for you if you have a long and expensive illness. Will it cover services that help keep you healthy?
With the ACA the government ensured that all health insurance policies hit a minimum standard.

They won't spend time reading anything. Then when their flimsy plans fail to cover something serious and they find themselves financially ruined, they'll cast the blame elsewhere. I say that unfortunately, this is an area where people need to get exactly what they are asking for.

Umm no. Our insurance provider, United, pulled out of the VA exchanges this year. Our rates dropped 12%.

Your rates would drop because the United book of business merged into a larger underwriting pool. VA has areas with too many options. All should have been 3 insurers and 1 plan or each year 1 insurer for 1 plan and it gets bid out like group insurance. Obama made a rats's nest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without robust consumer protection, it is buyer beware. I hope people who choose to buy cheap insurance policies across state lines are willing to spend a lot of time reading all the fine print so they actually know what their cheap policy covers. Will it be there for you if you have a long and expensive illness. Will it cover services that help keep you healthy?
With the ACA the government ensured that all health insurance policies hit a minimum standard.

They won't spend time reading anything. Then when their flimsy plans fail to cover something serious and they find themselves financially ruined, they'll cast the blame elsewhere. I say that unfortunately, this is an area where people need to get exactly what they are asking for.

Umm no. Our insurance provider, United, pulled out of the VA exchanges this year. Our rates dropped 12%.

Your rates would drop because the United book of business merged into a larger underwriting pool. VA has areas with too many options. All should have been 3 insurers and 1 plan or each year 1 insurer for 1 plan and it gets bid out like group insurance. Obama made a rats's nest.

and Trump is going to make it worse. It will be known as Trumpcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NO. The Dems tried to help the lower class, and in the process screwed over the middle class. All they did was switch who can afford medical care. Now the lower class get all the free care, and the middle class has to go without.

Define "middle class" because for a family of four with a HHI of $97K, they could get subsidies.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/finding-health-insurance/maximum-income-obamcare-premium-assistance/

Also, those in the middle class (and others) who couldn't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions were also helped by ACA.

I'm thinking of middle class as a couple of high school grads, each earning $35,000 for a combined income of $70,000 and living in the DC suburbs. Let's say they're in their 50s and their kids have grown. They are paying around $1500 to $2000 PER MONTH on a take home income of maybe &4500. Not only is that unaffordable, but they likely have to cough up the first $12,000 of expenses before the deductible is met. So....in a bad year...maybe $35,000 total medical expenses on take-home pay of around $55,000. Completely unaffordable. But under Ocare statistics, this couple is counted as "insured" - a success!

As far as your point that some people were helped, I agree. It's just that liberals ignore (or deny) the harm it has causes the middle class who previously were able to afford insurance.

Did you even look at the link? A couple making $50K a year, no kids, would get subsidies. And ACA limits the premium for people making under 400% of the poverty level, which your example falls into. The most they can be charged is 9.69% of income. Is this a real life example? I'm doubting it.

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

I looked at the link. My examole was for a couple making $70k - and they get squat. They are the middle class group I'm talking about. It is hard enough to make ends meet in the DC area on $70k (for two people) and then to have to fork over $1500 a month for ineffective coverage so poorer people get taxpayer reduced or free coverage is ridiculous.