CDZ Analysis of the ACHA and ACA at the individual level

[usmbguest5318]

isn't it dishonest to evaluate a bill before it's completed and ready to be signed?

Not if one wants to know what one thinks of the proposed bill in time to contact one's Representative and Senators to tell them what one thinks of the thing. What would you do? Call or email them and not know in detail what you're talking about when get them on the phone?

After the bill is passed, it's too late do do anything about it, except complain. I don't operate that way. I'd rather do what I can before it's too late, so that if I'm left with no alternative but to complain later, I at least I know I did the most and best I could not to find myself in such an emasculated position.

Excuse me but didn't the ACA change several times after it was signed. Didn't it go through numerous changes after the bill left the House and went to the Senate? Are you assuming that once it's voted on nobody is allowed to amend it, it's literally written in stone like the Ten Commandments? Even the constitution allows for amendments.

No. I'm pointing out how the bill is currently written and how it will pass the House assuming they don't, between now and Thursday, change the provisions I've discussed. I'm doing so in order to share with you and others here what I found out from having read the ACHA and the corresponding (amended) sections of the ACA.

It's not much of a political matter as far as I'm concerned.

• The draft bill says what it says. One either likes what it says and the impact on what one will have to pay for health insurance, or one doesn't.
• The draft bill says what it says. It's provisions are such that one either will end up paying more, about the same, or less out of one's pocket in order to purchase health insurance. That's either okay with one or it's not, and one will either let one's representatives know that or one won't.
• One has either taken the time to find out the same things I have by doing one's own reading and analysis or one has not.

Basically, my OP is a PSA. From a personal standpoint, I can assure you that whatever the GOP do with/to O-care isn't going to affect me in any way that matters. I may have to pay more; I may have to pay less. I don't care how much more it might be, I can afford it because nothing they do is going to make my premiums increase by hundreds of thousands of dollars. I just wanted to know what impact the bill would have on people who aren't in my situation, and since I bothered to find out, I shared the results of my inquiry.

Frankly, I hope for a lot of folks' sake that they do change the bill before the parts discussed in my OP take effect. I hope that out of humanitarian purposes, but also because I don't really want to hear people bitching and moaning after the fact, talking 'bout what they didn't know or didn't understand or do to try to get it changed before it their prospects and ability to have health insurance became FUBAR'd. Don't you think it makes more sense to understand what's in the offing and act to correct it before it's made a mess than not know, let it become a mess and then have to fix it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

What "funding?" What I wrote about is what people who must purchase insurance on their own rather than through an employer's plan have to pay to obtain insurance. Such individuals fund their health insurance purchase, i.e, pay the premium, from whatever sources of money they have.

Aren't you confusing the word fund with benefits???

No.

 

[Penelope]

isn't it dishonest to evaluate a bill before it's completed and ready to be signed?

Not if one wants to know what one thinks of the proposed bill in time to contact one's Representative and Senators to tell them what one thinks of the thing. What would you do? Call or email them and not know in detail what you're talking about when get them on the phone?

After the bill is passed, it's too late to do anything about it, except complain. I don't operate that way. I'd rather do what I can before it's too late, so that if I'm left with no alternative but to complain later, I at least I know I did the most and best I could not to find myself in such an emasculated position.

I have been doing that, write on their Facebook pages of the GOP and most times many other posters have been there and some are either pro or con, and I emails the ones in my district. We have Justine Amash from MI who is chair of the Freedom Caucus, and we seem to have some very young Republicans here who are very ultra conservative. I have been doing this since Trump has got in. I think Price took his facebook page down.

 

[mudwhistle]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

What "funding?" What I wrote about is what people who must purchase insurance on their own rather than through an employer's plan have to pay to obtain insurance. Such individuals fund their health insurance purchase, i.e, pay the premium, from whatever sources of money they have.

Aren't you confusing the word fund with benefits???

No.

Apparently so. A benefit is something given to you either from paying into it or from a service you provided. Insurance is something you pay for. Funding for this type of coverage shouldn't be a benefit just anyone can get. Only those who need it and can't get it anywhere else.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

What "funding?" What I wrote about is what people who must purchase insurance on their own rather than through an employer's plan have to pay to obtain insurance. Such individuals fund their health insurance purchase, i.e, pay the premium, from whatever sources of money they have.

Aren't you confusing the word fund with benefits???

No.

Apparently so. A benefit is something given to you either from paying into it or from a service you provided. Insurance is something you pay for. Funding for this type of coverage shouldn't be a benefit just anyone can get. Only those who need it and can't get it anywhere else.

Definition of FUND

 

[mudwhistle]

isn't it dishonest to evaluate a bill before it's completed and ready to be signed?

Not if one wants to know what one thinks of the proposed bill in time to contact one's Representative and Senators to tell them what one thinks of the thing. What would you do? Call or email them and not know in detail what you're talking about when get them on the phone?

After the bill is passed, it's too late do do anything about it, except complain. I don't operate that way. I'd rather do what I can before it's too late, so that if I'm left with no alternative but to complain later, I at least I know I did the most and best I could not to find myself in such an emasculated position.

Excuse me but didn't the ACA change several times after it was signed. Didn't it go through numerous changes after the bill left the House and went to the Senate? Are you assuming that once it's voted on nobody is allowed to amend it, it's literally written in stone like the Ten Commandments? Even the constitution allows for amendments.

No. I'm pointing out how the bill is currently written and how it will pass the House assuming they don't, between now and Thursday, change the provisions I've discussed. I'm doing so in order to share with you and others here what I found out from having read the ACHA and the corresponding (amended) sections of the ACA.

It's not much of a political matter as far as I'm concerned.

• The draft bill says what it says. One either likes what it says and the impact on what one will have to pay for health insurance, or one doesn't.
• The draft bill says what it says. It's provisions are such that one either will end up paying more, about the same, or less out of one's pocket in order to purchase health insurance. That's either okay with one or it's not, and one will either let one's representatives know that or one won't.
• One has either taken the time to find out the same things I have by doing one's own reading and analysis or one has not.

Basically, my OP is a PSA. From a personal standpoint, I can assure you that whatever the GOP do with/to O-care isn't going to affect me in any way that matters. I may have to pay more; I may have to pay less. I don't care how much more it might be, I can afford it because nothing they do is going to make my premiums increase by hundreds of thousands of dollars. I just wanted to know what impact the bill would have on people who aren't in my situation, and since I bothered to find out, I shared the results of my inquiry.

Frankly, I hope for a lot of folks' sake that they do change the bill before the parts discussed in my OP take effect. I hope that out of humanitarian purposes, but also because I don't really want to hear people bitching and moaning after the fact, talking 'bout what they didn't know or didn't understand or do to try to get it changed before it their prospects and ability to have health insurance became FUBAR'd. Don't you think it makes more sense to understand what's in the offing and act to correct it before it's made a mess than not know, let it become a mess and then have to fix it?

I don't like the bill as it is today, but as always happens, it will be amended in the Senate. The fact is the ACHA is intended as merely a replacement for the failing ACA, not a total solution. Many who are on the ACA will elect to drop their coverage and look elsewhere, which is the purpose of this. It is not supposed to replace Medicaid or Medicare. It is a last ditch program to prevent cancer patients from losing their homes. It doesn't force anyone to buy it and it doesn't force anyone to pay for coverage they don't need the way the ACA does. When you look at the numbers, it sucks, but its better than nothing, which is what the ACA is to most people. Frankly the government has no business being in health care anyway.

 

[OldLady]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that

I haven't seen one piece of official documentation or heard one official pronouncement that that is case. It may be how some people construe it, but it's certainly not that. After all, Congress and Congressional staffers are on O-care and they have the "Gold" level of coverage with a 75% subsidy. Catastrophic care levels is most certainly not what they have.

 

[Penelope]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

So your co workers do not have insurance from work, and what is their premium, I have not seen a 13,000 deductible on the ACA at least in our state of mi. The higher deductible are on the bronze plans which have low premiums, they are catastrophic plans, and the deduct is usually the same as OOP max.

 

[mudwhistle]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

They lied to us. It's designed only to provide coverage for the poor and illegals. Most people on the ACA can't afford it or even use it. All the ACA is is a massive tax increase and a massive burden on health care providers, which is why it's failing. It takes over 1/6th of our economy and literally puts the government into your home through intrusive regulations. Doctors have to provide the government with information about your drug use, tobacco use, and if you own a gun.

 

[OldLady]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

So your co workers do not have insurance from work, and what is their premium, I have not seen a 13,000 deductible on the ACA at least in our state of mi. The higher deductible are on the bronze plans which have low premiums, they are catastrophic plans, and the deduct is usually the same as OOP max.

Out of politeness, I don't ask my coworkers a lot of financial questions, but no, my employer does not offer insurance, and our hours are kept to just under 30 so they won't have to. As for the premiums, yes, the "bronze" plan sounds familiar--that is probably what they have. There are probably a lot of people who would like "real" coverage but can't afford it.
I may have gotten my numbers a little confused, but that's what I recall them saying.

 

[mudwhistle]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

So your co workers do not have insurance from work, and what is their premium, I have not seen a 13,000 deductible on the ACA at least in our state of mi. The higher deductible are on the bronze plans which have low premiums, they are catastrophic plans, and the deduct is usually the same as OOP max.

Out of politeness, I don't ask my coworkers a lot of financial questions, but no, my employer does not offer insurance, and our hours are kept to just under 30 so they won't have to. As for the premiums, yes, the "bronze" plan sounds familiar--that is probably what they have. There are probably a lot of people who would like "real" coverage but can't afford it.
I may have gotten my numbers a little confused, but that's what I recall them saying.

That's another side-effect of the ACA. Employers don't get have to provide coverage if they keep the number of full-time employees below a set level. Many employers also would rather pay the fine than give you insurance if they fall inside the regulations parameters.

 

[Penelope]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

So your co workers do not have insurance from work, and what is their premium, I have not seen a 13,000 deductible on the ACA at least in our state of mi. The higher deductible are on the bronze plans which have low premiums, they are catastrophic plans, and the deduct is usually the same as OOP max.

Out of politeness, I don't ask my coworkers a lot of financial questions, but no, my employer does not offer insurance, and our hours are kept to just under 30 so they won't have to. As for the premiums, yes, the "bronze" plan sounds familiar--that is probably what they have. There are probably a lot of people who would like "real" coverage but can't afford it.
I may have gotten my numbers a little confused, but that's what I recall them saying.

Yes I understand not asking them but when someone complains to me about the prices of the ACA, I can't help but ask them more but that is me. I have heard the 29 hour week thing and now since the GOP wants mandates lifted on employers as well and will change the full time status to 40 hours, but I still do not think they have to offer insurance, and most use to work employees just short of needed hours for insurance. Since the employers do all they can not to offer insurance share pay, its all the more reason for the ACA. I know many on the ACA, independent contractors, and they pay on what they make, a slow year they get more subsidies, and a good year less, one needs to put this on the their tax return. Its piece of mind even at a 13000 a year OOP max to know that assets will not be taken if one has assets. Without going on the marketplace if
this is the bronze plan, 13,100 would be OOP max.

 

[OldLady]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

So your co workers do not have insurance from work, and what is their premium, I have not seen a 13,000 deductible on the ACA at least in our state of mi. The higher deductible are on the bronze plans which have low premiums, they are catastrophic plans, and the deduct is usually the same as OOP max.

Out of politeness, I don't ask my coworkers a lot of financial questions, but no, my employer does not offer insurance, and our hours are kept to just under 30 so they won't have to. As for the premiums, yes, the "bronze" plan sounds familiar--that is probably what they have. There are probably a lot of people who would like "real" coverage but can't afford it.
I may have gotten my numbers a little confused, but that's what I recall them saying.

That's another side-effect of the ACA. Employers don't get have to provide coverage if they keep the number of full-time employees below a set level. Many employers also would rather pay the fine than give you insurance if they fall inside the regulations parameters.

Yes. That's been rampant up here (primarily small businesses in this area) since the ACA took affect.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I saw in the paper this morning that more Americans are considering healthcare a "right." In my granddaughter's lifetime, I believe she will see universal healthcare in this country. Obamacare did not go far enough and it has royally screwed with the insurance company market. The Republicans' plan is not going to fix the problem. This entire half one thing and half another is not going to work, ever. But people are slowly realizing that medical care for all, without consideration for how much money they have, is the only answer in this day and age when medicine can do so much to make lives healthier, happier, and longer.
I think we should repeal Obamacare, keep Medicaid extended coverage and leave the private market to do what it will without government interference. When the time is right, we will do the right thing and get universal healthcare.

I think something that the op doesn't point out is this funding is intended to be catastrophic insurance for the uninsurable. It's only affordable to someone who needs to pay massive health care expenses and cannot find coverage elsewhere. Let's remember what the word "insurance" means.

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."​

I'm not following you. Obamacare is only meant to be catastrophic insurance? I did not know that, although that is certainly what it has become for people buying it on their own. I have coworkers on the plan who have $13,000 deductibles AND a premium. A lot of people who are attesting to finally having insurance through Obamacare are apparently users who have serious medical bills, then. I have heard that most of the people who have become covered under Obamacare did so under the expanded Medicaid option many states took. Mine did not, so I know very little about how it works. That is a REAL medical insurance plan, that pays for doctor's visits and procedures and drugs PRIOR to being hit by a truck. I think most people expected that is what Obamacare would provide them. It hasn't. It really isn't working when people still can't afford to go to the doctor (it's not cheap anymore and who "plans" and saves to get sick--it just happens one day, you can't control it) because they haven't met an unbelievably high deductible.
If Obamacare was only meant to be catastrophic insurance, it should have been marketed as such.

So your co workers do not have insurance from work, and what is their premium, I have not seen a 13,000 deductible on the ACA at least in our state of mi. The higher deductible are on the bronze plans which have low premiums, they are catastrophic plans, and the deduct is usually the same as OOP max.

Out of politeness, I don't ask my coworkers a lot of financial questions, but no, my employer does not offer insurance, and our hours are kept to just under 30 so they won't have to. As for the premiums, yes, the "bronze" plan sounds familiar--that is probably what they have. There are probably a lot of people who would like "real" coverage but can't afford it.
I may have gotten my numbers a little confused, but that's what I recall them saying.

They may have a Bronze level plan or they may have a Catastrophic Care plan.

• http://health.usnews.com/health-new...health-insurance-plans-bronze-vs-catastrophic

Based on the info shared so far, I cannot say as I don't recall anything other than the remark about $13K deductible and I've not reviewed the entire line of conversation just to make this quick post.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I've seen a lot of people on and not on USMB remark about their premiums. What I have never seen is someone -- let alone enough people that the information can be seen as more than just a "one-off" -- layout a complete detailing of their situation such that they share their gross income, AGI, qualifying household size, the total monthly premium cost, the tax credit/subsidy value and the net amount they will pay for a variety of plans.

I've seen representative samples from various websites. What that entails is like what's shown below.

Source​

Obviously, I can't demand that people share that sort of information. Hell, we can't even get the relevant details as they pertain to the President. I don't have similar information to share about myself because as a business owner, I pay the full cost of my health insurance; I don't get subsidies or credits for my health insurance and there's no employer-paid share that's relevant for me because I and my fellow partners are the employer.

The point is that for all the griping I've seen/heard, I have absolutely no way to consider it in the right perspective due to the lack of information. That is what it is, but it I can't rationally make anything of the griping beyond considering it to be nothing more than exactly that, empty griping. It's useless for any a posteriori analysis. It's quite possible that the circumstances of each of the person's I've seen/heard complaining is sui generis, or substantively so.

 

[mudwhistle]

I've seen a lot of people on and not on USMB remark about their premiums. What I have never seen is someone -- let alone enough people that the information can be seen as more than just a "one-off" -- layout a complete detailing of their situation such that they share their gross income, AGI, qualifying household size, the total monthly premium cost, the tax credit/subsidy value and the net amount they will pay for a variety of plans.

I've seen representative samples from various websites. What that entails is like what's shown below.

Source​

Obviously, I can't demand that people share that sort of information. Hell, we can't even get the relevant details as they pertain to the President. I don't have similar information to share about myself because as a business owner, I pay the full cost of my health insurance; I don't get subsidies or credits for my health insurance and there's no employer-paid share that's relevant for me because I and my fellow partners are the employer.

The point is that for all the griping I've seen/heard, I have absolutely no way to consider it in the right perspective due to the lack of information. That is what it is, but it I can't rationally make anything of the griping beyond considering it to be nothing more than exactly that, empty griping. It's useless for any a posteriori analysis. It's quite possible that the circumstances of each of the person's I've seen/heard complaining is sui generis, or substantively so.

This is because we're dealing with Democrats. They lie, lie, lie. Obamacare was passed using fraud. It's the biggest tax increase in US history. It is a ripoff to everyone but targeted groups. It's not even close to being worth the costs it took to put it in place, and of course,.....it was designed to fail. It was designed to create a huge mess. The GOP can't do anything without being blamed for it, so instead they're wasting time until they can get 60 votes in the Senate. Then they can fix it......

.... but the Democrats won't allow them to fix it. They control the media and will conspire and collude with them until they can put the blame on Republicans. That's what is going on now.

 

[Staidhup]

I would caution to wait until the final bill passes joint committee prior to passing judgement. It is apparent the current rendition fails to address several key stumbling blocks. It has been made clear that the Dem's have no desire to participate, which is par for the course.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay...The tangentially related discussion has been entertaining. Let's move back to brass tacks, please.

• Does anyone have something substantive to share regarding the specific differences between the elements of the ACA and ACHA that were described in the OP?
• Does anyone else have their own comparably detailed comparative analyses (at the individual level) of the two pieces of legislation that they can share?

 

[usmbguest5318]

wait until the final bill passes joint committee

I've already addressed the notion of being reactionary rather than proactive.

• CDZ - Analysis of the ACHA and ACA at the individual level

I would caution to wait until the final bill passes joint committee prior to passing judgement. It is apparent the current rendition fails to address several key stumbling blocks. It has been made clear that the Dem's have no desire to participate, which is par for the course.

I suppose. It's also possible that there are people who are okay with the structure of the bill as it stands. People here haven't actually remarked upon the points of comparison and ACHA design that I noted in the OP.

(That's a big problem with USMB....Few people respond directly to the central topic/points of a thread/post. So few that it's actually hard to have a productive conversation here. Truly, I've attended literally hundreds -- maybe thousands, for I'm nearly 60 -- of poorly run meetings and seminars that are more conversationally fruitful than are discussions here. Conversation here, for me, conjures images of stultifyingly contrived chit chat among 19th century coquettes at a cotillion.)

It is apparent the current rendition fails to address several key stumbling blocks.

Quite frankly, seeing as the GOP have had some 6+ years to at a very detailed level, and with the benefit of abstract and experiential learning/observation and having the ACA as a template they could modify, design an alternative to the ACA, I'm not all keen to "cut them some slack" for not having a far higher quality replacement proposal than the ACHA. I don't think the ACHA needs to be 100% perfect in its draft stage, but the shortcomings I've noted in my OP, most especially insofar as they will really hurt millions of poor people and insofar as they contribute to the proposed bill's likely yielding more people uninsured than the ACA got insured, show the bill is far from the 95%+ "right" that I expected the GOP to have produced given that they had 6+ years to do so.

Off Topic:

It has been made clear that the Dem's have no desire to participate

Not that it matters, but I don't recall the GOP, after the ACA's imperfection had been acceded, being willing to be part of the solution other than to totally scrap the thing, an action that now that they have full control of the Congress and WH, they refuse to do, opting instead to cherry-pick their way through the ACA's provisions.​