Who actually has Obamacare? Or knows someone that does?

[PieIsAwesome]

I'm on Medicaid ( called medical here in California) I was laid off and then that very same month I was diagnosed with type 1.5 diabetes. My medication is very expensive (insulin and test strips, needles are all expensive). Not to mention all the doctor visits and blood tests they had to run.

I wonder, if this was before the ACA, would this have been considered a preexisting condition and would you have been ineligible for coverage?

Seems like any situation involving switching insurance would be hazardaous before, even if there were no gaps.

Get new job, get new insurance.
Diagnosed with some disease 1 month in.
Insurance says this condition was present for a while before diagnosis.
Considered preexisting condition.
You are boned.

 

[werepossum]

If you're implying that the ACA plan might have good deductibles you don't know much about the ACA plans

Its like $12,700 for a family of 4.

It's like anything else, you can buy lower deductibles at the cost of higher premiums. Or at least, you can in most markets.

I think what he's implying is that the tax benefit on the difference of 2500 isn't big enough to "hurt" in his eyes. In other words, "stop bitching, you need to pay for someone else"

Proggies are always willing to reach into someone else's pocket for the money they decide that person doesn't need.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I wonder, if this was before the ACA, would this have been considered a preexisting condition and would you have been ineligible for coverage?

Seems like any situation involving switching insurance would be hazardaous before, even if there were no gaps.

Get new job, get new insurance.
Diagnosed with some disease 1 month in.
Insurance says this condition was present for a while before diagnosis.
Considered preexisting condition.
You are boned.

For that poster, assuming he'd been covered under his employer, he'd have been eligible for COBRA to continue his health coverage (at full, unsubsidized price). Otherwise, yeah, transferring to new employers could be a crapshoot depending on their size and plan. IME, large employers with large group policies generally didn't exclude pre-existing conditions for employees or their family.

I once switched jobs to a smaller employer and, to cover my wife and her conditions, had to provide the certificate of continuing coverage, proving no gaps in insurance, for the new policy to waive the one year waiting period and pre-existing condition exclusions.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you're implying that the ACA plan might have good deductibles you don't know much about the ACA plans

Its like $12,700 for a family of 4.

I think what he's implying is that the tax benefit on the difference of 2500 isn't big enough to "hurt" in his eyes. In other words, "stop bitching, you need to pay for someone else"

Hardly. It's an honest question. I never used an FSA, so somebody who has should be able to easily come up with *gasp* real numbers, not just pissing & moaning.

Oh, and offer an authoritative source for that $12,700 claim while you're at it.

 

[Bill Brasky]

I sell to hospitals in a major metropolitan area. The rate of uninsured at a local ER dropped from 18% to 2-3% YTD. Believe what you want, but it's affecting a ton of people.

 

[WackyDan]

Puh-leeze. How bad can it hurt, really? Give us the math.

"Previously, I saved $X per year with a $5K FSA. It works like this- let me explain."

Do the same with a $2500 cap.

Otherwise, it's too vague for honest assessment.

Your friend in VA? Family of 4 with income in excess of $94K? Again, way too vague. ACA rate higher? By how much? Same for the deductibles.

For someone who is here pimping the ACA you should already know the math.

Previous cap was $5100. ACA mandated cap is $2500.

Take $2600...Deduct fed, state and assorted taxes from that and what do you have left? Math isn't hard and I shouldn't have to do it for you but it is slightly over $1000 less to cover out of pocket medical costs. I'm assuming it is chump change to you though right?

 

[WackyDan]

I think what he's implying is that the tax benefit on the difference of 2500 isn't big enough to "hurt" in his eyes. In other words, "stop bitching, you need to pay for someone else"

That is exactly it. He knew the math.

He probably doesn't have a child or spouse with elevated healthcare costs either. His assumption is that because I have employer sponsored plans that I must be filthy fucking rich. I know he thinks this, because every progressive that I've ever debated the FSA cap with has defended the new cap and villainized me for even bitching about it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I am surprised this being ATOT and all that nobody has chimed in to say they employ their own doctors and own their own Pharmacy..........

 

[werepossum]

For that poster, assuming he'd been covered under his employer, he'd have been eligible for COBRA to continue his health coverage (at full, unsubsidized price). Otherwise, yeah, transferring to new employers could be a crapshoot depending on their size and plan. IME, large employers with large group policies generally didn't exclude pre-existing conditions for employees or their family.

I once switched jobs to a smaller employer and, to cover my wife and her conditions, had to provide the certificate of continuing coverage, proving no gaps in insurance, for the new policy to waive the one year waiting period and pre-existing condition exclusions.

COBRA is waaay more than full, unsubsidized price.

For someone who is here pimping the ACA you should already know the math.

Previous cap was $5100. ACA mandated cap is $2500.

Take $2600...Deduct fed, state and assorted taxes from that and what do you have left? Math isn't hard and I shouldn't have to do it for you but it is slightly over $1000 less to cover out of pocket medical costs. I'm assuming it is chump change to you though right?

Everything is chump change to him as long as it comes from your wallet, not his.

 

[Fern]

It means that employer sponsored plans can fall below the thresholds of coverage demanded by the ACA, for starters. It means a lot more customizations & loopholes you won't notice until you need what you thought you had & it's not there.

Hmmm..

Help me out a little more. The case I was thinking about, which IIRC has now been accepted by the SCOTUS, concerned the issue of whether subsidies/tax credits were available for plans purchased on the fed govt website.

This has to do with the language of the statute which, arguable, only allows such for plans purchased on the state sites.

You seem to be referring to a different case.

Can you give me a case name or link pls?

TIA

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

For someone who is here pimping the ACA you should already know the math.

Previous cap was $5100. ACA mandated cap is $2500.

Take $2600...Deduct fed, state and assorted taxes from that and what do you have left? Math isn't hard and I shouldn't have to do it for you but it is slightly over $1000 less to cover out of pocket medical costs. I'm assuming it is chump change to you though right?

And that exaggerated number would put you in a very high marginal tax bracket whining about a small % of your income, correct?

 

[Jhhnn]

Hmmm..

Help me out a little more. The case I was thinking about, which IIRC has now been accepted by the SCOTUS, concerned the issue of whether subsidies/tax credits were available for plans purchased on the fed govt website.

This has to do with the language of the statute which, arguable, only allows such for plans purchased on the state sites.

You seem to be referring to a different case.

Can you give me a case name or link pls?

TIA

Fern

Please. If the federal exchange is ruled improper, then the whole thing will necessarily be scrapped. I doubt that it will be, given that the current imbroglio is an artifact of the Court's interference with the statute as written. What would you suppose the current congress would put in its place?

 

[Fern]

Please. If the federal exchange is ruled improper, then the whole thing will necessarily be scrapped. I doubt that it will be, given that the current imbroglio is an artifact of the Court's interference with the statute as written. What would you suppose the current congress would put in its place?

Please? Really?

This is your post explaining how the SCOTUS case will affect employer coverage:

It means that employer sponsored plans can fall below the thresholds of coverage demanded by the ACA, for starters. It means a lot more customizations & loopholes you won't notice until you need what you thought you had & it's not there.

How does any of what you wrote above have anything to do with the SCOTUS case regarding tax credits for plans purchased on the fed site?

That's been my question from the get-go.

I'm no expert on Obamacare/ACA but I don't see how the SCOTUS case, or tax credits for individuals, has a damn thing to do with employer provided coverage.

I'm asking an honest question. If you don't know don't bother to make shit up pretending otherwise.

Fern

 

[WackyDan]

And that exaggerated number would put you in a very high marginal tax bracket whining about a small % of your income, correct?

You are talking out your ass. Nothing is exaggerated about that number. The prior cap was $5100. We would have been stupid to not take advantage of that given what our out of pocket costs were per month.

So when you factor in ALL federal and state taxes on that freshly exposed $2600, I'm pretty much spot on in regard to what the ACA is costing me.

If you don't know what an FSA even is then you probably shouldn't be lecturing me or anyone on it. As I mentioned, every time I get into this debate with a progressive they degrade the conversation to exactly what you stated above..."whining about a small % of your income, correct". I don't take the healthcare coverage for my daughter lightly nor do I appreciate the liberals and progressives reaching into my employer sponsored healthcare and stripping me of my ability to absorb out of pocket costs associated with that healthcare. If you bother to do a little research on FSA's you'll realize they were designed to help with out of pocket medical costs for everyone with an employer sponsored plan... So why the fuck was it deemed necessary to rip 50% of that ability away? **Because the progressives just can't fucking stand that anyone with an employer sponsored plan has something you can't get on the private market for health care. Here is the logic though - That is part of my benefit plan with my employer and I consider that plan part of my overall compensation. So why do you want to fuck with that?

I'm an independent by the way. I hate all parties equally these days.

 

[OverVolt]

.............