“Hundreds of millions”? Why not say “trillions”? It’s just as “true”.
I don’t think that’s what he was claiming. In any event, the bottom line is this: HIPAA did NOT prevent some people from being rejected due to pre-existing conditions. If it had, there’d be no need for the ban on rejection due to pre-existing conditions in ACA, would there? And if HIPAA did already do that, it shouldn’t be controversial in the ACA.
As for my kid, she WAS HIPAA-eligible, as I explained, but only after I paid a huge amount for COBRA and then a huge amount for the HIPAA plan. It may not be outright rejection, but it was shockingly expensive and not affordable for many people (and not for long for me).
COBRA cost my family $1,600/month, more than twice a comparable Obamacare plan. Gotta make sure that Humana earns a “respectable” return on their capital!
I see. So then you are aghast at all these ACA plans that are shockingly expensive and not affordable for many people, right?
Compared to what was there previously? Not at all. I can get an Obamacare plan with a $35 copay for $67/month for my wife and I. It’s a high-deductible plan, but it still covers a lot of preventative and checkup care.
You can see the plan details here: http://apps.humana.com/marketing/documents.asp?file=2104908
If $67/month is “shockingly expensive” for the coverage, I’d like to see a cite for a comparable 2-person $67/month health insurance plan prior to ACA.
Because of course you personally getting the government handout is what the whole ACA is about. Other people who are forced by ACA to pay 20%+ of their income for health insurance don’t matter.
Does this mean we’re in agreement about the previous issue?
No. As we can see with shockingly expensive ACA plans for some people, covering everyone with pre-existing conditions has its price. Just like you found out with your daughter. Except now it is someone else who is paying the price, not you, so it’s fine with you.
You’re going to have to show us some numbers, Terr.
People with low incomes generally can get subsidies or tax breaks for buying insurance under ACA. If someone is out there being forced to buy insurance they can’t afford due to ACA, we need to see it first. There are probably a few anecdotes on the web or Fox News, for what that’s worth (nothing), but it’s probably way too early to find reliable data. But if you have something, please share it.
And don’t forget that people paid everything out-of-pocket for health care when they didn’t have insurance. Sometimes that was cheaper, but it was still an expense that must be compared to the cost of an insurance premium. And, of course, if some kind of medical disaster struck, it was ALOT more than insurance costs - sometimes bankrupting.
P.S. In any event, I’m quite confident an ACA policy would be much less than what I had to pay for COBRA and then HIPAA.
Sure. 60 year old, earning 50,000/year, thus ineligible for government handouts. Silver plan. ACA premiums are around $750/month. That’s $9K/year. 18% of his income. The personal deductible on a Silver Plan is what - 5K/year or so? Let’s say he’s fairly healthy so he uses up $3K - very average for a 60-year-old use of medical system and drug costs. That’s $12K/year total. That’s 24% of his income. Would you say that’s “shockingly expensive”?
I don’t know ACA inside and out, and I don’t know if your numbers are reliable.
But I do know that there are more than one choice of plans and that Silver isn’t the cheapest, and that the cost varies WIDELY by state, and that people may qualify for tax deductions and/or subsidies which you didn’t include in your calculations, and that a 60-year-old with no health insurance policy could spend a chunk of his income, perhaps approaching $12K, out of his pocket anyway.
Like I said, I’ll be interested in seeing actual data when it comes in.
(P.S. I looked it up, and a Silver plan’s average deductible for an individual is $2907. I think your on the napkin rough calculations just aren’t good enough.)
If by “shockingly expensive” you mean less expensive, and by “not affordable for many people” you mean “more affordable for more people”, then, yeah, that what it means.
I allocated $3K in my calculations. You say $2907. Big diff…
Since you seem to “know” this - can you enumerate them? For example, ACA also raises the percentage after which people can deduct their medical expenses. Thus reducing those possible “tax deductions”.
Well, if you’re going to choose the most expensive Silver plan (which in Atlanta GA would cost $717/month) and ignore the cheaper Silver plans (which are $230/mo less at $487), why not go for the Humana National Preferred plan (a Platinum plan) for $688?
That’s the average. But my point was that you estimated $5k as the deductible. I simply don’t accept your off-the-cuff estimates as accurate. Nothing personal, it’s just not good enough. I wouldn’t expect you to accept mine either.
There’s a tax credit for premiums: The Premium Tax Credit – The basics | Internal Revenue Service
There’s a subsidy: Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator | KFF (you could use this for accurate scenarios for your 60-year-old)
Only 6% of taxpayers deducted medical expenses, even under the old threshold. (I did it the year my kid was born - that was a hell of a year). Since more people will have insurance under ACA, hopefully fewer will need to rely on tax deductions for medical expenses in the first place.
Nah, Terr picked this particular demographic combination because someone in it does poorly under the new law… of that, he is correct. A person who falls under all the given statistics have to pay for coverage, are not qualified for catastrophic policies (because of their age), the income is just over the amount for the tax credit (so they get no assistance there), and the age is just below where Medicare coverage kicks in. The approximately 2-5 million Americans who fall under that combination of demographics *might *have to pay more for their insurance if they (a) weren’t covered before, or (b) had one of those crappy Mega policies.