Dude, subsidies. They are a thing.

I really hope I didn't kill Dennis Farina by posting this

No need to address the actual cost of insurance, let's just throw a bunch of money at it. Better yet, we'll just subsidize all of the policies 100% and get the money from China. What could go wrong?

We still have the problem of <250% of FPL gets a great deal and anyone >250% of FPL gets screwed, with those >400% of FPL really getting screwed. Even those in the 300-400% of FPL range may not get a subsidy if the cost of coverage is below 9.5% of income. For example, a family of 4 with income of $90k would qualify for a subsidy, but only to the extent that the policy does not cost over 9.5% of income, or $712/month. If that family is currently paying $400/month, they are still facing an additional cost of over $300/month in the post-2014 era for a plan that probably has a higher annual max OOP than what they already have.

The massive marginal tax for earning one extra dollar and no longer qualifying for a subsidy (rather than using a sliding-scale over 400% of FPL) has also yet to be addressed by Congress, but that's a whole different issue.

How much does it currently cost if I'm a 40 year old male with a pre-existing condition?

Depend what the condition is...and that still could have been addressed by creating a national high-risk pool with sliding-scale subsidies based on income, rather than turning the entire individual market upside down and shifting to group health insurance pricing.

Turning the individual market upside down is the whole ****ing point. Everyone but you, even like blahblah and rara, seems to understand that the individual market is a disaster.

And lol @ your high risk pool endorsement. I can only imagine what you'd be saying about costs had we gone that route. "ZOMG AN INDIVIDUAL POLICY COSTS $1000 PER MONTH AND THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING ALMOST ALL OF IT. THANKS OBAMA COUNTDOWN TO BUSTO SOMETHING GREECE CHINA OUT!"

Dude, if you can't write the check, you can't write the ****ing check! Families are NOT going to just pay $1,000/mo for health insurance. About half my business is helping families on COBRA find a way out of paying $1,000+ per month for their COBRA policies by getting something cheaper on the individual market.

The large majority of my clients are seriously worried about the cost of coverage starting next year, while a small portion of them see it as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow since they will save a ton of money either because of their age or bad health. We can all talk about "fairness" and how everyone should be able to get health insurance, but if the rules put in place make the market unattractive to young/healthy families, it's not going to work. I like how the argument has gone from "we're going to save everyone a bunch of money" to "well you're getting a better policy so of course it's going to be more expensive." Of course, you may not be getting a better policy, and for many people they will see their annual OOP max go much higher (see my example of a silver plan vs. an existing HSA plan) for a higher-priced policy with benefits (i.e. maternity, mental health, pediatric dental care) that most of them will never use.

Yes, I'm sure the Tea Party-controlled House of Representatives is chomping at the bit to pass a national high-risk pool with sliding-scale subsidies based on income. I'm sure they'll get to that right after they finish naming an aircraft carrier after Saul Alinsky

Jagger is still well at 70.

Is that a tiny camera in his tooth there?

This nails it. ACA is nothing more than a huge wealth redistribution system (with a little health care thrown in). All these people receiving subsidies are receiving them from the more affluent.

rara, do you think healthcare should be a right for US citizens? Or do you think if you can't afford healthcare then just too bad - don't get sick?

Was health care available when the constitution was written? Of course it was, did the framers include it as a right? No.

Before the gov got involved (including medicare/medicaid), private entities and charities took care of providing it for the masses.

Did you answer my question? I guess you're saying no?

Yeah, healthcare in the 1800's was a great example of charities taking care of the poor.

We've come a long way.

Why are people getting bankrupted by medical costs and going without healthcare today? Private entities and charities still exist AFAIK.

Is this a big A-HA! reveal? I don't think anyone (in this forum, at least) was confused about this.

Yeah this is kind of a dumb post, unless you think that a heavier reliance on charity directly led to beliefs like "low morals => bad health."

Do people really go without healthcare or do people go without health insurance?

No matter what we do, people will still be going bankrupt. Do you think people having to pay 5-10k deductible, out of pocket expense yearly is sustainable?

Fair enough. I just wanted to dispel the notion that everything was fine until the government got involved.

People go without healthcare.

I never said it was fine. ACA doesn't really fix the problem, I don't think it was intended to do that.

ACA doesn't fix every problem. Fewer people will go without healthcare than before we had it, though.

Forgive me if you've answered this before, but I don't remember - how do you feel about single-payer? I'm just curious and I don't want to assume one way or the other.

Does this mean we all have better health care?


What are the benefits? What are the draw backs? I'm not for the gov taking over health care, that is were this country is headed. In the long run we are headed for diminished health care for the masses for the benefit of a few.

single payer >>>> ACA >>>> pre-ACA regulatory dumpsterfire