Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, that website is wrong? Because according to that table, $70K for family of 2 does indeed qualify for a tax credit -- maybe you were thinking subsidy like cash in hand, and the premium cannot be more than 9.69% of their income. So, I your example is still incorrect.

How is the tax credit any different than what the R plan proposed for such a family? They, too, wanted to give out tax credits only, and also take away cost sharing subsidies to lower income folks.

I just did a calculation on that website, and it showed that $70k for a family of 2 got $0 tax credit. Nothing. They are on the hook for the full amount, which can run close to $2000 for the both of them. That would be more than $20k in premiums for a moderate-earning premiums. And remember....they still will have to cough up thousands of dollars to cover medical care on their own before the insurance even kicks in.

Probably because the premiums in that area are relatively low. Where is this, zip code? I live in MoCo and our premium is $1100 family of four, silver plan, oldest person is 50+.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, that website is wrong? Because according to that table, $70K for family of 2 does indeed qualify for a tax credit -- maybe you were thinking subsidy like cash in hand, and the premium cannot be more than 9.69% of their income. So, I your example is still incorrect.

How is the tax credit any different than what the R plan proposed for such a family? They, too, wanted to give out tax credits only, and also take away cost sharing subsidies to lower income folks.

I just did a calculation on that website, and it showed that $70k for a family of 2 got $0 tax credit. Nothing. They are on the hook for the full amount, which can run close to $2000 for the both of them. That would be more than $20k in premiums for a moderate-earning premiums. And remember....they still will have to cough up thousands of dollars to cover medical care on their own before the insurance even kicks in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is the difference? What is the cost sharing subsidy?

OK, I'm back....There are two categories of "taxpayer assistance" with Obamacare, beyond those who get Medicaid (the really poor folks).

1) Premium subsidies. This is the amount that moderate earners (say, $30kish to $48kish) get to offset the cost of the insurance plans, capping their share at 9% of income. So a 58-year-old earning $35,000, for example, might only have to pay $280 for a $680 insurance plan. They qualify for a $400 premium subsidy.

2) Cost-sharing reimbursements. But there's a second category, say....for people earning somewhere in the teens (the point where Medicaid would kick in) and $30k. They still get the premium subsidies, so a person earning $25,000 would only have to pay around $180 for that same $680 plan (9% of income), but they get EXTRA taxpayer subsidies to help with the out-of-pocket costs. An example would be that instead of having to pay the $20 copay for a doctor visit, they would only pay $5.

It is this latter category that a court ruled illegal, and which Trump is stopping. You will till get premium subsidies, the first category. (That's it in a nutshell, and I estimated numbers for examples because the 9% cap is actually slightly more at 9.xx%.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is the difference? What is the cost sharing subsidy?

I am running out now.....yes, a life beyond DCUM....and don't have time to explain. I'll come back later this afternoon to explain (but if someone else wants to do it, have at it),

That's correct.. the ^PP premium is capped according to ACA rules. But, the actual premium will probably go up, and it's the upper middle income folks that will get screwed. Trump's EO is not well thought out in terms of who is going to get screwed by this. It's not the lower/middle who's premiums are capped. It's the middle/upper who don't qualify - a large % of his base.

Please refer to tables
https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

Huh? I thought the libsters kept demeaning his "base" as the uneducated working class, who will still be protected with subsidies if their premiums go over 9% of MAGI. So if you're earning $40k, you'll pay around $300 for a silver plan. Without it, if you're in your 50s, you'd pay at least twice that.

But now you're saying that the middle/upper gets screwed by rising premiums? Nothing new there. Obamacare set in place a scheme that has caused premiums to rise an average of 20% a year - even 50% in some states - even doubling in a state or two! That's what people have been screaming about for years. Now just you watch, all the libs will be blaming Trump for next year's increase.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is the difference? What is the cost sharing subsidy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is the difference? What is the cost sharing subsidy?

I am running out now.....yes, a life beyond DCUM....and don't have time to explain. I'll come back later this afternoon to explain (but if someone else wants to do it, have at it),

That's correct.. the ^PP premium is capped according to ACA rules. But, the actual premium will probably go up, and it's the upper middle income folks that will get screwed. Trump's EO is not well thought out in terms of who is going to get screwed by this. It's not the lower/middle who's premiums are capped. It's the middle/upper who don't qualify - a large % of his base.

Please refer to tables
https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, that website is wrong? Because according to that table, $70K for family of 2 does indeed qualify for a tax credit -- maybe you were thinking subsidy like cash in hand, and the premium cannot be more than 9.69% of their income. So, I your example is still incorrect.

How is the tax credit any different than what the R plan proposed for such a family? They, too, wanted to give out tax credits only, and also take away cost sharing subsidies to lower income folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
shoulda woulda coulda.... but now Trump is in charge. What is he going to do about it? Gut it so that millions lose healthcare coverage? How does that help? We have a problem here. Instead of focusing on "who's at greater fault", how about we all focus on how to make it better? That's why McCain voted against the repeal twice, because he wants to have something that both sides can agree on, that helps those who are struggling. What Trump and the rest of the Rs have proposed doesn't help these folks, and as he stated, it's a flash in the pan solution, a solution that will sway with the political wind until the power switches to the other side. Then they will want something else. It's untenable. Fix it once and for all. Expand medicaid to include even more people. That is the only way it will help the lower/middle class.

Medicaid is bankrupting the states in case you had not heard.

1/3 to 1/2 of state budgets are going to keep medicaid going.

Gut it so that millions lose healthcare coverage? Yes! The middle class is tired of getting screwed over by people who don't pull their own weight.

Instead of focusing on "who's at greater fault", how about we all focus on how to make it better? Where were you in 2010 when competition across state lines and limits on legal settlements was proposed? Oh yeah, you were telling the Republicans to go pound sand. You had all the answers, like robbing medicare of close to a trillion $$$.

Healthcare.gov was an OBAMAnation from the start and didn't work after three years and 600 MILLION in funding. That should have been your first clue.

Don't lump the lower and middle class together. The lower class leaches off of the middle (WORKING) class.

You're really, really stupid or a cynical purveyor of alternative facts. Which is it?

FUN FACT: Under the ACA the vast majority of Medicaid comes from the federal government. Not the states. Your 1/3-1/2 of the state budget going to Medicaid. WRONG. 17.5% of VA State Budget (not Medicaid explanation state). Maryland 24.2^ (Medicaid expansion state). Republicans want to block grant MedicId, which will push more of the cost of Medicaid to the states.

https://ballotpedia.org/Medicaid_spending_in_Virginia

https://ballotpedia.org/Medicaid_spending_in_Maryland

-- not FUN FACT guy, because I know what the F--k I am ttlkimg about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is the difference? What is the cost sharing subsidy?

I am running out now.....yes, a life beyond DCUM....and don't have time to explain. I'll come back later this afternoon to explain (but if someone else wants to do it, have at it),

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is the difference? What is the cost sharing subsidy?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACA was fundamentally flawed and everyone, including the Obama administration knew it. There is no point in using band aids to deal with the flaws. Just repeal it and come up with a structurally sound alternative.

As long as the flawed ACA is allowed to continue with fixes, the less likely that it will really be dealt with in a serious way.

Name the alternative. The ACA was the GOP plan. The GOP has now rejected it because the black guy installed it.

So now what? Can't go back to what was before, and the ACA is now dead. What do you suggest?

Too much to cover in a post but basically:

- We need a public option - not single payer
- [b]Insurance across state lines should be permissible-Obama would not allow very logical association group plans.[/b]
- People who make lifestyle choices that jeopardize their health pay more eg those who are overweight, smoke, don't go in for medically recommended screenings, etc
- Pharmaceutical prices MUST be negotiated and, if needs be, the option should be available to purchase from a different country eg Canada - but subject to it being from approved sources to deal with quality issues
[b]- States should be allowed maximum latitude to develop their own health financing and delivery mechanisms Medicaid should be standardized based on zip codes and colas. Use the federal pay scales-boost in high cola areas. Each state can then choose to expand or not expand using state taxes [portion for expansion isolated from any federal tax deduction. Then if CA wants to include illegals I am NOT paying for it.

Public health clinics-feds require state funding but again states pay for it beyond a federal contribution based on historical usage. No federal subsidy for illegals.
- It should be mandatory for every American to have health insurance - the half-assed approach that ACA took with minimal tax penalties was ludicrous.. Plus Obama let people keep plans for a few years on a grandfather basis. Obama ignored basic underwriting.
. What will it take for people to get it into their heads that ACA in its present form will never be viable? It is structurally unsound and the temporary fixes that the Democrats want will just make things worse over time......

What Trump's EO order will do is to accelerate the process of implosion which is hardly desirable but given that neither side wants to address the issue without budging from their respective positions perhaps this will cause enough of a reaction to compel serious discussion and negotiation.

BTW, my background is in health care administration and we knew when ACA was passed that it was a matter of time before it would fall apart.

I also have a background related to insurance and knew it would implode. Unfortunately everyone had to be so PC about anything Obama did...