RE: health care law - confused again

RE: health care law - confused again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/23/2013 3:04:26 PM)
Try this... http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-your-boss-is-dumping-your-wife-2013-02-22 http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/obamacare-healthcare-coverage-spouses If the law doesnt require them to cover you.......

Real0ne -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/23/2013 11:19:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady But without tax credits, will it be affordable? Plus, my understanding is you can that it would be additional insurance. I'm not doubting what you are saying, but again, if people can choose their employer or the exchange, what is to stop employers from offering the worst plan available that meets the minimum standards in order to push their employees to the exchange? This would, theoretically save the employer the fines (they offer it, not their fault no one takes it), yet they still wouldn't be providing the insurance. The would get exactly what they are crying about now. Continue to not provide insurance, and not be fined for it. just like the now extinct pensions

LafayetteLady -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/24/2013 1:10:19 PM)
Thanks for those articles. As I said, you can't simply choose which will offer better coverage. The coverage has to be financially prohibitive (as in the spousal coverage issue). So if the plan through the employer covers a spouse at an affordable rate, the spouse can't simply opt out and go for the exchange hoping for better coverage.

tazzygirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/24/2013 7:14:05 PM)
The Affordable Care Act mandates that employers offer health insurance to workers and their dependents. But the law defines dependents as children, not spouses.

LafayetteLady -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/24/2013 10:12:52 PM)
I get that, it's pretty straight forward. If an employer doesn't offer coverage for a spouse, they can go to the exchange. My point is that if an employer DOES offer insurance to a spouse, I don't think the spouse can simply say, "I don't like their plan, I want to go to the exchange." Also keep in mind, that without the tax credits, even the exchange won't be offering an affordable plan for someone looking for that "gold" package.

tazzygirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/24/2013 10:20:07 PM)
There are four tiers to the exchange plans. No idea how "affordable" they will be without the tax credits. Gottwals said, “The question for employers and the insurance industry became, ‘What about a family of five?’” Without being included in the employer’s contribution, the family health-care insurance coverage will be off the chart, leaving the spouse and kids to fend for themselves. He added, “Furthermore, if the employee’s premium is deemed ‘affordable’ because it is below 9.5 percent of the employee’s W-2 wages, the non-working spouse and children will be denied access to federal subsidies to buy healthcare in the Exchanges. Hence, if the employer offers ‘unaffordable’ coverage to the spouse and kids, the spouse and kids are precluded from federal assistance.” In a peculiar twist, earlier Obamacare regulations mandated that employers offer coverage to children, but declined to mandate that spouses be offered dependent coverage. For employers unwilling or unable to contribute to spousal healthcare, a family will be better off if the employer does not even offer healthcare to spouses at all. This is because, if the spouse is not offered healthcare, he or she can actually get a federal subsidy to buy coverage in an Obamacare exchange. Whereas, if the spouse is offered “unaffordable” coverage by an employer, the spouse is denied federal subsidy assistance. Employers are not mandated to cover spouses on insurance under Obamacare. http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/02/05/obamacare-grants-exemptions-for-everyone-but-taxpayers/ So, while the spouse could be denied the subsidy, they can sign up. And, if the employer doesnt offer spousal insurance, they may be entitled to the subsidy.

tazzygirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/24/2013 10:25:46 PM)
~FR This is the first I can find for rate amounts. From Bronze To Platinum The companies approved to sell individual insurance on the exchange include the state’s dominant commercial players, such as Anthem Blue Cross, Kaiser Permanente, HealthNet and Blue Shield of California, as well as a number of regional and quasi-public health plans that largely rely on public and university hospitals and community health centers to deliver medical care to low-wage workers. The proposed premiums still must be approved by state insurance regulators. Three of the nation's largest players in the employer-sponsored insurance market -- UnitedHealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna -- are not going to be selling on the California exchange. The proposed premium prices vary depending on the geographic region of California, the consumer’s age and the richness of benefits, from catastrophic coverage for young adults to “Platinum” products. Under the premiums unveiled on Thursday, a 25-year-old in Los Angeles could choose a Health Net catastrophic plan for $117 a month or a more comprehensive “Bronze” plan for $147 a month from L.A. Care, the nation’s largest public health plan. And if that individual makes less than about $45,600 per year, she would qualify for a subsidy that would bring the cost of the premium down further. ........... More than half of Californians shopping for insurance through the state-run marketplace will be eligible for federal income tax credits. Those credits will offset the price of private insurance: A 40-year-old individual in Los Angeles, for example, who earns $1,915 a month, or 200 percent of the federal poverty level, would pay a monthly premium of $90 for a Health Net HMO “Silver” plan in 2014, according to the rates released by Covered California. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/May/24/calif-health-insurance-exchange-marketplace.aspx

LafayetteLady -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/25/2013 2:23:36 AM)
As usual, you provide good information. I don't have the patience to do the searches, so I'm glad you do. In any case, the way they are calculating the affordability is based on combined income prior to deductions, which can make them ineligible for the subsidies. My understanding is that families will not be penalized for not having insurance because it is unaffordable, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to purchase in the exchange. And as long as the total cost to the employee is less than 9.5% of their income, the employee MUST get their insurance from their employer, and it seems as though this would include if that percentage was for a plan that included the family (and spouse). This means that even if it is a shitty plan but meets the mandatory minimum, they must take it, because it qualifies as affordable, and they aren't able to opt out for the exchange. While I believe that we need a National Healthcare System, this is really looking to be a mess.

tazzygirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/25/2013 2:34:10 AM)
http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/bronze-health-plans#.UaCEXtLVDv5 http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/silver-health-plans#.UaCEhdLVDv5 http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/gold-health-plans#.UaCErNLVDv4 http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/platinum-health-plans#.UaCEudLVDv4 Bronze is the cheapest... 40/60 type of plan.... Here is a handy chart of California's offerings.... [image]http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2013/02/CC-Standard-Individual-Benefit-Plans.jpg[/image] Where people thought this would all be free care, I have no clue.

graceadieu -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/26/2013 4:18:55 AM)
For comparison's sake, my last employer-based plan was comperable to that silver plan chart (the deductible was lower for drugs and higher for other things), but it cost ~1/3 more. Now, my share of the premium was only ~$120/month. But at the time, I made ~200% FDL, which would make me eligible for a significant subsidy. The report shows a silver plan for a 21-year old at that income level would start at $108/month - so the total cost on the exchange would be less than my share of the premium at my old job. Not free, but it definitely makes it a lot more affordable for people on a low income. Here's a link to the state report that the data comes from.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/26/2013 11:07:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady If you can think logically for a moment, if people were able to do what you want, then everyone would choose the exchanges unless their employers offered great coverage. The employers would be off the hook, and that isn't going to happen. WHY isn't that going to happen? Is it prevented to ensure that employers continue to cut worker's hours to avoid paying health insurance? Is it prevented to discourage businesses from hiring? Doesn't preventing the separation of health insurance from employment keep unemployment high? Why would the goal of the government be to keep the unemployment rate high?

tazzygirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/26/2013 1:42:17 PM)
Unless you have me on block, you should already know the answer.

LafayetteLady -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/27/2013 12:07:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady If you can think logically for a moment, if people were able to do what you want, then everyone would choose the exchanges unless their employers offered great coverage. The employers would be off the hook, and that isn't going to happen. WHY isn't that going to happen? Is it prevented to ensure that employers continue to cut worker's hours to avoid paying health insurance? Is it prevented to discourage businesses from hiring? Doesn't preventing the separation of health insurance from employment keep unemployment high? Why would the goal of the government be to keep the unemployment rate high? The answer to all of your questions is a resounding no. It also demonstrates why you tend to get some attitude from people over your posts.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/27/2013 5:54:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady If you can think logically for a moment, if people were able to do what you want, then everyone would choose the exchanges unless their employers offered great coverage. The employers would be off the hook, and that isn't going to happen. WHY isn't that going to happen? Is it prevented to ensure that employers continue to cut worker's hours to avoid paying health insurance? Is it prevented to discourage businesses from hiring? Doesn't preventing the separation of health insurance from employment keep unemployment high? Why would the goal of the government be to keep the unemployment rate high? The answer to all of your questions is a resounding no. It also demonstrates why you tend to get some attitude from people over your posts. So you're telling me companies don't cut employee's hours to avoid paying for health insurance and that health insurance premiums tied to employment don't discourage job growth?

tazzygirl -> RE: health care law - confused again (5/27/2013 6:04:00 PM)
Yes.... no.... more questions?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875