No, it is not the same cost. They had insurance that met the minimums for the ACA, so the law said, if they quit that insurance and purchased insurance through they would not be eligible for the federal subsidy. The same thing applies to me, because my insurance through my employer meets the standards.
Then the GOP added the amendment that forces them to quit their employer provided insurance and purchase through the exchanges. So even if they qualified for the subsidy, they couldn’t get it, because they quit their employer’s insurance. So they were being forced to pay much more for insurance than someone in their home districts/states would, all else being equal.
Someone realized that this would unfair for those people, penalizing them for working where they do. So they passed an exemption for them, allowing their employer, the Federal government, to help pay a share of their premiums equal to what they would get from the subsidies.
So those staffers are set at this time to pay the same for insurance as anyone else getting it through the exchanges. Except the GOP is continually making noise and complaining about their own staffers “getting an exemption” from the ACA. The exemption in fact just equalizes things for those staffers, but it’s a great soundbite for the Tea Party, and they don’t care about screwing their staffs, so those staffs are right to be uneasy about the costs they may have to pay increasing, because the GOP wants to penalize them.
Doesn’t prove they’re actually paying more, just that there’s a perception. People are notoriously wrong about actual facts. And, of course, it doesn’t mean Obamacare caused the difference anyway.
Of course they are - they’re getting less than they did. Unlike those who had NO insurance and can now get it. Congressional staff are the ONLY people in the country who were required to give up employer-provided insurance to go to the exchanges and get it themselves. They were used as political pawns, and you’re perpetuating that.
Who other than Congressional staffers had to quit employer provided group plans?
Individual plans are not as good as group plans. That has always been the case. There may have been some employers who stopped offering insurance, but in that case those workers would be eligible for subsidies. The federal government still offers an insurance plan, staffers just can’t use it anymore. A normal employer could not keep insurance for some, but get rid of it for others like this so the law did not address this.
Obamacare is the Congress’s “employer provided group plan” - with some exceptions (like “leadership staff” LOL). By law. Because they should have the same benefits (or lack thereof) that they are foisting on others.
What’s wrong with the benefits from Obamacare? It is the same plans sold in the individual market, with the same benefits, only with cheaper premiums. I can go on Anthem BC/BS and look up my Obamacare plan on their individual market. The doctors are the same, so how do you figure Obamacare benefits suck? I am very happy with mine.
If there’s nothing wrong with the benefits from Obamacare, then the Congress staffers have nothing to complain about, right? They’re all liars. Democrat and Republican staffers, all of them.
In order to achieve those cheaper premiums, the insurance companies are hugely narrowing the networks, as I documented upthread.
No, the doctors are not the same. As the Congress staffers are finding out (and complaining about).
The Congressional staffers stuff is a dumb, dumb distraction. Here’s a very simple way to look at it – there are several different ‘grades’ of health insurance in the US. The best (from my experience) is military health care. Let’s grade that one with an A. Still quite good, and quite popular, is federal government employee health care. We’ll give that one a B. And then there’s private insurance, which can range from F to A, and for Obamacare signups, let’s call it a C. So it’s not at all surprising, and not a knock on the ACA, that federal employees, like Congressional staffers, would prefer to keep their federal government employee health care. The ACA was not designed to serve federal employees – it was designed to help those without insurance, as well as lower costs for those with private insurance.
So the Congressional staffer thing is just a political move designed to increase the pain, with no other reason. The ACA is not A+ health care, and it’s not supposed to be. It’s just better than pre-ACA health care for most. The fact that it’s not better than federal government health care says pretty much nothing about it.
One thing that I have seen in threads here before is the exhorbitant charges incurred for visits to emergency rooms / treatment that are seldom actually collected.
One quite simple way to think of it…
Lets say I make a profit of 10% per widget. If I sell 10 widgets, but only 9 people pay - do I make any profit? The answer is NO. All my surplus is consumed to make up for the one person that doesn’t pay.
Then apply this to healthcare - so even if I use the same amount of insurance as before, but all of a sudden I don’t have to make up for the shortfall of non paying customers, my rates can go down / I can get more coverage for the same price - Yea or Nay?
Also think of the analogy of a fence at the top of a cliff always being cheaper than an ambulance at the bottom. With more people insured, you would assume that more people get timely treatment, so that problems are addressed when they can be treated more effectively and cheaply - rather than becoming emergencies. Isn’t this going to be cheaper for society as a whole? So wouldn’t you expect that to be reflected in insurance rates if all of society is insured?
time and again, whenever we in places outside of America hear about your terrible health care system, one component / problem is always timely access to affordable care leading to an uneven / overconsumption of the more expensive “emergency care” as opposed to the more reasonable preventative care. Which is something that a good insurance plan goes some way towards addressing.
Which means, to me at least, it is not surprising that
a) More people getting timely care
b) more people actually paying for their care
can lead to the seemingly counter intuitive result of better care / plan for less cost being the result of more people insured.
Is there anything at all wrong with a BMW X3 SUV? It’s a pretty good small SUV right? Especially if you don’t have a vehicle. So you would be quite willing to swap a free X5 xdrive50i for an X3 xDrive20i that you have to pay for?
I know for me I would be complaining - but this is in no way a reflection on how good the vehicle is…
Here is another simple way to think of it. Congress and its staffers have foisted Obamacare on millions of people. But they squeal when they are subjected to it. As long as you’re thinking of “simple ways to think of it”.
Here’s another: PPACA gets affordable health insurance to people who are uncovered or under-covered. Congressional staffers, like many people employed in office jobs, were covered. Congressional staffers were covered in the huge federal employees plan, so they had a good and affordable plan. As good as if they worked for a Fortune 50 firm - maybe even better. GOP elected officials threw their own staffers out of the plan as part of their massive resistance efforts to keep my son (and millions of other people) from getting health insurance. (And I know precisely what “massive resistance” means, as I live in Virginia.) Suppose the GOP elected officials said that PPACA should cover everyone except ExxonMobil. Would you say those polluting monopolistic price-gouging bastards got what they deserved? Of course not. Even if you felt that way about ExxonMobil, the people affected by being forced out of their employer plan were not the ones who made the decisions to pollute etc. In my hypothetical, the janitorial supervisor of a refinery in California would lose coverage as revenge for the bad decisions made by a high corporate official in Virginia. IRL, GOP elected officials threw their own receptionists off health coverage as an attack on their elected colleagues who supported PPACA - via the staffers. It was a Bridgegate move.
This is obviously false – the ACA benefits many who already have insurance. The ‘controversy’ is about that small number for whom the ACA may cause to pay more for health insurance.
They are NOT treated like everyone else under ACA. Congressional staff were all employed, and all had employer-provided insurance. Everyone else in America in that situation isn’t required to do anything under ACA, which is designed to provide insurance to those who don’t have it.
The GOP played a trick by calling those who already have insurance “exempt” from ACA, as if ACA is some kind of burden rather than simply a program designed to help those without insurance.
How exactly is it an imposition to those who already have insurance? Other than those who had bare-bones, cheapo plans that didn’t really count as adequate insurance?
As for those freeloaders who once could afford insurance but didn’t want to pay their own way and simply wait until disaster strikes and then let the rest of us pick up the tab, well, I consider that an imposition on me.