|
evilweasel posted:Right, but your argument would cause an increase in the medical inflation rate, while the evidence says the medical inflation rate is going down. It's going down at the expense of increased costs to consumers, and the resulting deferral of care. From your WaPo piece (written before the 2014 plans kicked in): quote:The ACA does not account for all of the recent cost slowdown. New medical technologies are coming online more slowly than they used to; none of the 10 best-selling drugs on the market today were developed in the past decade. Similarly, patients with high deductibles are deferring elective procedures. Many insured families today owe more from a hospital visit than they have in the bank. Each of these factors is contributing to the reduction in health-care spending. But noting that factors beyond the ACA are important does not deny the importance of the law. Reducing Medicare payments for hospital readmissions is good, but irrelevant to the point of forcing the end of employer-provided insurance and making individuals purchase private insurance with high out-of-pocket costs and extremely narrow networks. And it's entirely irrelevant to the stratospheric profits of the private insurance industry, which was the point of my post. That writer's tortured point about a 1 percent GNP drop in medical spending translating to every family's saving $2500 is just ludicrous, and contrary to what's known to date about increased consumer costs for healthcare.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's going down at the expense of increased costs to consumers, and the resulting deferral of care. From your WaPo piece (written before the 2014 plans kicked in): We will see if your issue with high deductible plans is a legitimate concern - my impression is it's not but I'm happy to see actual data. The rest is basically you picking one thing (out of many) that the ACA does to bend the cost curve and asking what it has to do with unrelated things. I think it's obvious enough why this is nonsense that's intended to distract away from a point that does not help support your worldview rather than inform a reader or identify an actual problem in an argument. As I stated before, I would expect the private insurance industry's profits to go up: we are getting a large number of new people healthcare for the first time. That's a great reason for their profits to go up: their profits are going up because of an unalloyed social good. Now, if you can point to reasons why their profits are going up for bad reasons, we can discuss those! But what you're doing is a basic bait-and-switch that desperately hopes the reader misses the truth about why the profits went up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:We will see if your issue with high deductible plans is a legitimate concern - my impression is it's not but I'm happy to see actual data. The rest is basically you picking one thing (out of many) that the ACA does to bend the cost curve and asking what it has to do with unrelated things. I think it's obvious enough why this is nonsense that's intended to distract away from a point that does not help support your worldview rather than inform a reader or identify an actual problem in an argument. Of course federalized subsidies for the uninsured factor into the increased profits for insurers; I never maintained otherwise, and the only desperation I've seen is in your claiming that I did. But the rate of profits for the industry is higher than would be accounted for by an additional two million people or so above and beyond the six million who had their prior policies cancelled under the ACA. I'm sure the privatized Medicaid schemes that exist now in most states have also enhanced insurers' profits, just as increased consumer costs and reduced payments by insurers to providers also has played a role. I don't agree that insurers' profits blowing through the roof under a mandate to purchase their products is an "unalloyed social good," especially when it's at the expense of consumers deferring care because of higher out-of-pocket costs, or the government's taking FFS Medicaid and privatizing it into HMOs--and especially when all that money would pay for a hella lot of public health, minus the middlemen. eta: There are roughly the same number of Americans insured now, under the ACA, as in 2008, before the recession. Are insurers' profits more now or less than they were back then? That would get to the point of your argument, no? Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Once again, how the CBO gets to that score is a result of myriad assumptions that in nearly every case will not actually happen over the next ten years. Here is a list of the things the CBO scored as "Reliable Revenues and Savings:"quote:$210 billion generated by lifting Medicare taxes for high-income individuals with adjusted gross income above $200,000 and married couples earning over $250,000 and "Less Certain Savings:" quote:The CBO estimates that $196 billion will be saved as Medicare trims annual increases (or “updates”) in payments to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical centers and other “non-physician providers” by 1 percent a year for ten years. If, in a given year, hospitals normally would receive an adjustment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that raised reimbursements by 3 percent, under the new law their reimbursements would rise by just 2 percent. The legislation explicitly This right here is based on the assumption that these cuts will lead to increased hospital productivity and efficiency to make up an effective 10% cut in payments over ten years. There are also unscored 'structural reform' savings that they didn't even attempt to score due to it being basically impossible to predict the outcome. All of those presuppositions combine to an effective CBO scoring of the bill saving 17 billion dollars for the years that the ACA mandate is actually in effect, on top of the Medicare/caid outlays being scored on the doc fix not applying for that entire period. $43 billion of the projected savings comes from items completely unrelated to health care. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Of course federalized subsidies for the uninsured factor into the increased profits for insurers; I never maintained otherwise, and the only desperation I've seen is in your claiming that I did. But the rate of profits for the industry is higher than would be accounted for by an additional two million people or so above and beyond the six million who had their prior policies cancelled under the ACA. It is somewhat tiring to see you continue to trot out discredited republican attacks because they are helpful for your particular world view. The bolded part does not even deserve a response at this point as it has been systematically debunked. You have nothing to support that the profits are actually "too high", of course. That's my point: you are harping on profits being up and hoping that people draw the conclusion that it's because of bad reasons while actually offering nothing to support it. Willa Rogers posted:I don't agree that insurers' profits blowing through the roof under a mandate to purchase their products is an "unalloyed social good," This sort of thing is why I don't have a lot of patience for your arguments: they're generally not just wrong, they're dishonest. You know, and I know, that the reason the profits are up is because people could now purchase heath care thanks to subsidies. Not that they were forced, kicking and screaming, into buying heath care, (with minor exceptions from Republican media personalities for the purpose of advancing their careers). This is something both you and I know, yet still you're posting this nonsense. At the end of the day the issue is your arguments come from the exact same place as Republican arguments: the ACA is bad is the premise, and then the facts are twisted to get there - generally not outright lying, per se, but by being quite deliberately deceptive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:Once again, how the CBO gets to that score is a result of myriad assumptions that in nearly every case will not actually happen over the next ten years. That's an entirely different argument. The argument I am first rebutting is that the 10 year window was deceptive. From the report you cited, it clearly was not: the law is indeed revenue neutral at worst and cuts the deficit at best. When it comes to the things you've quoted, none of them are unreasonable just looking at them so I'm not sure what your point is in this post. Of course they will not happen exactly as predicted, but you're not exactly posting anything that suggests they're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:All of those presuppositions combine to an effective CBO scoring of the bill saving 17 billion dollars for the years that the ACA mandate is actually in effect, on top of the Medicare/caid outlays being scored on the doc fix not applying for that entire period. $43 billion of the projected savings comes from items completely unrelated to health care. The doc fix issue is entirely unrelated to the ACA and I don't know what point you think you're making with it besides a generic "don't trust the CBO!!!". It existed as a budget problem long before the ACA and has been essentially unchanged by it. When it comes to $43b of the projected savings coming from items completely unrelated to heath care: duh. They are taxes. The ACA is revenue-neutral because it imposed various taxes. It largely eliminated unjustifiable loopholes and deductions because that is the most politically palatable way to impose a new tax, but...duh, they're taxes. Why on earth would that be a problem with the budget scoring?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
EW, you were too busy slinging ad homs to answer this:quote:There are roughly the same number of Americans insured now, under the ACA, as in 2008, before the recession. Are insurers' profits more now or less than they were back then? That would get to the point of your argument, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:EW, you were too busy slinging ad homs to answer this: I answered your post as it existed when I quoted it. I don't know what they are now, as there's about a year lag time on profits. The correct comparison however would be from last year to this year (which I expect is not reported yet given the usual lag time in reporting yearly results, though if you have a source feel free) and correct for the impact of new customers from the ACA. Insurance company profits have changed dramatically since 2008 - for example, profits rose in 2009 despite enrollment falling. That said, I also realized you haven't actually shown any increase in their profits in the article you cited: you showed an increase in their stock prices which is the market reacting to the market's belief there will be an increase in their future profits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
I (nor the article) also didn't take into account the reinsurance program by the feds for this year and next year, and how that will factor into insurers' earnings. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out by year-end, and moving ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I (nor the article) also didn't take into account the reinsurance program by the feds for this year and next year, and how that will factor into insurers' earnings. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out by year-end, and moving ahead. That program should merely smooth out the impact of luck or cherry-picking - it's basically transfer payments between the insurers so it wouldn't affect the sector as a whole. At the end of the day there's a lot you have to analyze of each dollar: 1) What goes into insurance company profits 2) What goes into insurance company overhead that is essentially wasted (i.e. there's no benefit to this overhead even given our current system) 3) What goes into insurance company overhead that is poorly used compared to alternatives (i.e. it's not that this money is pissed away, but you could get the goal better through, for example, single-payer) to really look at the waste in the insurance system. I don't see a lot of good arguments that the ACA increases those. Some of the things you point out are ways that they could attempt to avoid the rule limiting how much money they retain by essentially laundering money through doctors and then receiving kickbacks. I certainly don't want to say that won't occur, but I question how effectively it can occur on the scale that it matters to an insurance company without being immediately obvious and obviously illegal. There's also the argument that maybe they will just waste money on "medical care" to increase the total they spend on medical care and therefore the amount they can retain. That is possible and it probably wouldn't be illegal or detectable. But there, the goal is for the exchanges to counteract that: to pull of this strategy you must be able to dictate prices to the consumer. If the exchanges are effective at making market forces push down prices (and there's some strong evidence they are from the exchanges themselves: the more plans, the better the prices which means the fundamental market mechanic that's being relied on appears to be working) then you can't make this strategy work: you piss away that money, your prices to the customer are higher, and people shift to another plan that seeks to boost profit through volume instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Check your monthly bills carefully if you have insurance through the exchange etc, I just had Ohio's marketplace take me off my own plan for no reason (they left my wife on and sent us a bill for half the normal amount). Cunts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The source of that article is the Wall Street Journal, which is...not reliable... when it comes to actual analysis on political topics. You can see that repeatedly where they mix apples and oranges to fool the reader (for example at the end, where it talks about how health spending is picking up: of course it is, more people are getting health care - what matters is if that health care itself is getting more expensive). There's two important actual data points in there that are useful: PWC's projections of the future, and the claim by a credible source this slowdown actually began in about 2003. Not to back track, but medical cost inflation and health insurance companies raising premiums just because they can are two separate things. I feel like we are experiencing the latter. Are there no controls for this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
tadashi posted:Not to back track, but medical cost inflation and health insurance companies raising premiums just because they can are two separate things. I feel like we are experiencing the latter. Are there no controls for this? The PPACA introduced minimum medical payout ratios for insurers depending on size, so yes, there are controls. Unless an insurance company has some wiggle room with the statutory medical payout ratio, it effectively cannot raise prices faster than healthcare cost inflation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
tadashi posted:Not to back track, but medical cost inflation and health insurance companies raising premiums just because they can are two separate things. I feel like we are experiencing the latter. Are there no controls for this? I think there were some controls in the ACA, but they were largely state-administered so for certain parts of the country there aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The PPACA introduced minimum medical payout ratios for insurers depending on size, so yes, there are controls. Unless an insurance company has some wiggle room with the statutory medical payout ratio, it effectively cannot raise prices faster than healthcare cost inflation. What I'm trying to figure out is why healthcare cost inflation is the lowest it's been in years but our company's premiums went through the roof (I'm talking about the overall cost, not just what employees are being asked to pay) and I'm not the only person I know with this issue. There could be aggravating factors within these companies (usage last year or people getting older and entering higher risk categories or w/e). It just looks like a lot of premiums in group health care plans are increasing a lot more than healthcare cost inflation should cause them to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The PPACA introduced minimum medical payout ratios for insurers depending on size, so yes, there are controls. Unless an insurance company has some wiggle room with the statutory medical payout ratio, it effectively cannot raise prices faster than healthcare cost inflation. Well, yes and no. Even with the same loss ratio, healthcare premiums are leveraged and so will go up at a higher rate than overall medical inflation. For example, you have a $1,500 deductible plan with no coinsurance after. In 2014, you have $2,000 in claims. This means that the insurance company expects to pay out $500 in benefits, and will set their premium accordingly. If you have 4% medical inflation, you have the same $1,500 deductible plan, but now the same set of services cost $2,080. The insurance company now expects to pay out $580 in benefits instead of $500. If they maintain the same loss ratio, your premiums are entirely justified to go up by 16%, even though medical inflation is only at 4%. In aggregate the effect tends to be much smaller, closer to an additional 1-2% above medical CPI. As a general rule though, most people should see their premiums going up by more than medical inflation, or have something that offsets the cost (such as raising the deductible). tadashi posted:What I'm trying to figure out is why healthcare cost inflation is the lowest it's been in years but our company's premiums went through the roof (I'm talking about the overall cost, not just what employees are being asked to pay) and I'm not the only person I know with this issue. There could be aggravating factors within these companies (usage last year or people getting older and entering higher risk categories or w/e). It just looks like a lot of premiums in group health care plans are increasing a lot more than healthcare cost inflation should cause them to. It might be dependent on your specific group. If you have some people that recently got diagnosed with cancer, for example, the insurance company will adjust your company's premiums to take into account what they expect to spend next year. esquilax fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
esquilax posted:
We are getting older (I started working here 7 years ago and most people are still here) and I assume our risk is going up. It just bothers me that everybody's reaction is "Obama   " and it probably doesn't have a lot of direct influence over the issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
tadashi posted:We are getting older (I started working here 7 years ago and most people are still here) and I assume our risk is going up. It just bothers me that everybody's reaction is "Obama Depending on the specifics of your plan, you might be able to blame up to 3% of the increase on Obamacare. Anything after that is probably just inflation and people getting sicker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Jumping in here with both feet but I figured I'd give it a shot since I need to write this down somewhere and I'm hoping to get some explanations or advice. I've supported single-payer health care in the US for years but recent events have made me even more confused and discouraged on a personal level. My school-based insurance from doing part-time post-grad work ran out a short while ago. Afterwards, I applied for Medicaid so I'd at least have something. Single, late 20s, no kids or disabilities, but well below $15K/yr income. All the pamphlets I read said Medicaid was the way to go for someone like me. It would have been much more helpful if they had included a prominent disclaimer saying NOT APPLICABLE IF YOU LIVE IN RED STATES because oops now I'm in trouble as a South Carolina resident. A couple weeks ago I developed appendicitis and had to get that sucker removed. It came down to an afternoon of tests (complete blood count and contrast MRI), one overnight stay with nurses and pain meds, and morning surgery. Fortunately I went to a non-profit hospital with an excellent charity program which I found out today will cover things 100%. However, I'm still stuck with the surgery consultation bill (~$550 discounted from around $1K) and whatever else they decide to charge me with (haven't received all the bills yet). I know it's much less terrible than it could have been, but it's still much more than I can afford at the moment. I didn't see an A/T thread so this may not be the place for it but any advice on the current bill as well as my insurance for the foreseeable future would be appreciated. Throughout the admission process not a single hospital employee told me that my pending Medicaid app would be useless. Do I get any sort of subsidy through PPACA due to my income level? Currently I have the options of jumping back on the mediocre $750/yr school-based plan for a year starting in January, or signing up for the current PPACA enrollment. For my income level, all the plans shown to me by the insurance advisor were $200-300/mo and terrible, but he said that if I told him I plan to make more than $15k next year he could offer me a ~$50/mo Silver plan (I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this too-- how on earth does it make sense they get cheaper and better once you're out of the federal poverty level in the first place? The insurance advisor's explanation of "the government is dumb" wasn't really satisfactory to me). Advice isn't really my main reason for posting though, I guess I just don't understand how this is supposed to be a functioning health care system. I can't be the only one who has no realistic option other than Medicaid and can't even get that, so what are we supposed to do? I of course knew about the refusals to expand, but nothing on the SC Medicaid website discouraged me from applying. I can't even find my application on the site anymore, whereas it was previously listed as "Pending." Is there any real reason (e.g. tax burdens) for these governors to reject Medicaid beyond "gently caress Obama"? How have they not been publicly slammed for this? And sure I get that America's free-market health care system is supposed to be the superior alternative to UHC, but even with insurance you still have things like deductibles, OOP, co-pays-- how does anyone look at that and think it's a good system when other countries don't have to deal with any of it and still experience comparable wait times and health care quality? Surely paying a couple hundred more in taxes once a year is far less than you'd pay in premiums for personal plans or paycheck deductions for company plans? I know I'm not being very clear with my points in this post but I've spent far too much time dealing with the hospital and the health insurance advisor at WalMart and like I said I guess I was just hoping to hear some more candid advice/clarifications from goons familiar with the subject. Hazo fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Hazo posted:Currently I have the options of jumping back on the mediocre $750/yr school-based plan for a year starting in January, or signing up for the current PPACA enrollment. For my income level, all the plans shown to me by the insurance advisor were $200-300/mo and terrible, but he said that if I told him I plan to make more than $15k next year he could offer me a ~$50/mo Silver plan (I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this too-- how on earth does it make sense they get cheaper and better once you're out of the federal poverty level in the first place? The insurance advisor's explanation of "the government is dumb" wasn't really satisfactory to me). To start, here are the full prices for a 28 year old, non-smoker, in the zip code 45075. I told them that you make about 15 million a year. https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/29135/results/?county=45075&age=28&smoker=&parent=&pregnant=&mec=&zip=29135&income=15000000&step=4 You're going to see some high prices for two reasons. First, at a glance, the plans in your area kind of suck. Sorry. The second, is that you're seeing the full price for someone who is fabulously wealthy and qualifies for no subsidies. Now, look at these results: https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/29135/results/?county=45075&age=28&smoker=&parent=&pregnant=&mec=&zip=29135&income=15000&step=4 These include a monthly tax credit of $183. NOTE: Catastrophic plans do not get credits, you'd pay full price. Make sure you look at plans at each tier. Do not limit yourself to catastrophic plans only. You'd need to do additional research but there are gold plans for around $50 after the tax credit. Theres a bronze plan that's $192 after the tax credit. Hazo posted:Is there any real reason (e.g. tax burdens) for these governors to reject Medicaid beyond "gently caress Obama"? Hahaha! No.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Hazo posted:Currently I have the options of jumping back on the mediocre $750/yr school-based plan for a year starting in January, or signing up for the current PPACA enrollment. For my income level, all the plans shown to me by the insurance advisor were $200-300/mo and terrible, but he said that if I told him I plan to make more than $15k next year he could offer me a ~$50/mo Silver plan (I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this too-- how on earth does it make sense they get cheaper and better once you're out of the federal poverty level in the first place? The insurance advisor's explanation of "the government is dumb" wasn't really satisfactory to me). This I can explain: if you're making under a certain amount you do not get subsidies, because under the ACA as written you are covered by medicaid: states could not opt out of medicaid under the ACA. However, the Supreme Court let them, creating a situation unforseen by the drafters: not rich enough to qualify for subsidies, but not eligible for medicaid because of Republicans. Unfortunately its way, way more likely that your state would lose the subsidies altogether than that odd hole getting fixed due to the political realities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Hahaha! No. For the Medicaid expansion the federal government would pay 100 percent the first 3 years and then a 90% share after. Most red states rejected the above, even though it would have minimal impact on state budgets and if anything would create lots of new healthcare jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:To start, here are the full prices for a 28 year old, non-smoker, in the zip code 45075. I told them that you make about 15 million a year. So no chance I qualify for any subsidies or rebates due to my income level then? Or are the "subsidies" being talked about the same thing as the tax credits that only kick in after you're already too wealthy for Medicare? evilweasel posted:This I can explain: if you're making under a certain amount you do not get subsidies, because under the ACA as written you are covered by medicaid: states could not opt out of medicaid under the ACA. However, the Supreme Court let them, creating a situation unforseen by the drafters: not rich enough to qualify for subsidies, but not eligible for medicaid because of Republicans. etalian posted:For the Medicaid expansion the federal government would pay 100 percent the first 3 years and then a 90% share after. Hazo fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Hazo posted:Unbelievable. Again I have to wonder how nobody is calling them out on this and how this is supposed to be a legitimate alternative to a UHC system. Only a few red states like Kentucky did buck the party line but once again Republicans hate creating jobs when it gets in the way of their ideology. A study in texas said even after the free period it would still be revenue positive for Texas due to new healthcare jobs on the payroll and also local medical care facilities making capital upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Hazo posted:he told me to come back later and tell him my expected income would be higher than 15k From what I've heard, if you overestimate your income, you don't have to pay back the subsidies. You should definitely do some more research to verify this. I think it might be a good idea to be optimistic and decide that you expect your income to be $15,000 or more a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Well I definitely do plan on making more than that next year, it just sure as hell isn't happening while I'm finishing a dissertation but I didn't know you could base your marketplace plan on your anticipated income rather than your most recent return. etalian posted:A study in texas said even after the free period it would still be revenue positive for Texas due to new healthcare jobs on the payroll and also local medical care facilities making capital upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
etalian posted:Only a few red states like Kentucky did buck the party line but once again Republicans hate creating jobs when it gets in the way of their ideology. Kentucky did it because it has a democratic governor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Kentucky did it because it has a democratic governor. Arizona took medicaid expansion with a Republican governor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
nelson posted:Arizona took medicaid expansion with a Republican governor. No way Ernie Fletcher would have done it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
I recommend against reporting future income high enough to qualify for the subsidies unless you really think you will earn close to that. Eventually you must report actual income and future subsidies could be reduced to make up for overpayments. Republican congressmen intend to watch administration enforcement of this very closely. There really is no way around the gap created by making the Medicaid expansion optional. Your state government is 100% screwing you, because a majority of the legislators want to see Obamacare fail more than they want to increase revenue and promote the health of their state. This is happening because too few people either know, care or believe that this is actually happening. On the topic of health insurance profits, I want to point out that insurance companies have revenue streams other than premiums. They are required to keep a large capital reserve in order to cover potentially catastrophic volumes of claims. But they are allowed to invest this capital. I would expect that right now investments are contributing more to insurance company profits than premiums are. That wouldn't stop them from maximizing premium revenue, oh no. Cost shifting is something only consumers, providers, and governments should have to put up with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I recommend against reporting future income high enough to qualify for the subsidies unless you really think you will earn close to that. Eventually you must report actual income and future subsidies could be reduced to make up for overpayments. Republican congressmen intend to watch administration enforcement of this very closely. Hazo fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Hazo posted:Again I want to be very clear that I fully intend to achieve at least that level of income once my dissertation is finished, which is why the approach was suggested to me in the first place. I don't know how other people who don't have something like that on the horizon are supposed to deal with the issue, though (other than going without insurance I guess). Move to a state without asshats in charge, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Move to a state without asshats in charge, I suppose. Where is this mystical land?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Where is this mystical land? It's a relative thing, but if your state legislature is throwing away billions of dollars and more specifically leaving you without healthcare coverage to make an incoherent ideological point it may be worthwhile to consider whether seeking greener pastures is feasible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It's a relative thing, but if your state legislature is throwing away billions of dollars and more specifically leaving you without healthcare coverage to make an incoherent ideological point it may be worthwhile to consider whether seeking greener pastures is feasible. Ahh, more reasonable asshats. That I understand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Yeah I get that some people think that fleeing instead of staying and trying to improve things is a great idea. I remember seeing it proposed (and mocked) a bunch in the NC General Assembly thread a couple years ago. For some people, like for example those of us whose schooling, jobs, and families specifically relate to the southeast US, it's not really an option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Ahh, more reasonable asshats. That I understand. OTOH, if you want to keep your asshats and get health insurance, come on down to Kentucky! Don't actually do this. (unless you're coming to Louisville, we're super rad  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I recommend against reporting future income high enough to qualify for the subsidies unless you really think you will earn close to that. Eventually you must report actual income and future subsidies could be reduced to make up for overpayments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Qualification for the subsidy is binary in the states that rejected the Medicaid money, right? You either get it or you don't based on your income? Wouldn't it make sense just to declare additional income on your taxes, even if you didn't really earn it? Just say you went to Vegas and won it while gambling. The standard deduction is so high relative to the subsidy threshold, and the marginal rate relatively low for the remainder, that it shouldn't be much extra you'd be paying in taxes, I don't think. Not in comparison to what one would get for the subsidy, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 15:20
|
|
