|
Bird in a Blender posted:Not sure if this was asked and answered already, I didn't see it mentioned. With the 30% premium increase if you go two months without insurance, does that still apply if I go from one employer based plan to another? Just thinking that if I lose my job, and don't get insurance for a few months, and then find another job, would my new employer actually end up paying more for my insurance? I could honestly see companies taking that into effect when hiring someone if so. Just a PSA (for you or anyone else reading), but don't ever put yourself in this position. Just because you're out of work doesn't mean you're invulnerable to traffic accidents or any other random disaster. Pay for COBRA to stay on your old plan (up to 18 months, although some states like CA double that) until you find a new job. Always have continuous coverage.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:Part of it is that deductibles and coinsurance are so high that many poor people can't afford anything more than basic medical care even with insurance. Why should poor but healthy adults spend a significant portion of their income on insurance that they can't meet the deductible on if something catastrophic were to happen? I guarantee that if you fall down the stairs and end up needing orthopedic surgery the out of pocket cost without insurance will greatly exceed the deductible with insurance. That's saying nothing about your new plan, when you get one, having an exclusion period and whoops, cancer turns up. (Exclusion periods are still very much a thing even under ACA)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:So? If you have $500 in savings there isn't much difference between a bill for a $6,000 insurance deductible and a hospital bill for $20,000, you can't pay either and are equally hosed. Yeah, poo poo's hosed. I'm not giving some by-your-bootstraps lecture here, but if someone can afford it they should definitely use their COBRA benefit rather than hoping for the best.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:This is a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate limits discussion on those, meaning there is no filibuster. Supposedly, but I don't understand how this bill doesn't exceed the scope of the reconciliation process (which is supposed to just be 'spend more/less on X')
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Obamacare itself was passed partly through reconciliation Yes, there was a final reconciliation bill that tweaked expenditures but all the statutory parts like the individual mandate were passed as regular legislation and get 60 votes in the senate. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/obamacare-was-not-passed-reconciliation It's too bad that this urban myth persists but I think that ship has sailed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:They really have nothing to stand on to defend this bill. It raises costs, lessens coverage, replaces the mandate with a slightly different thing that functions even worse, and really does leave in place most of Obamacare. It repeals the 3.8% capital gains tax on >250k earners, who are the only constituency Republicans care about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 08:51
|
|