<p>That link allows you to go to NY’s site. They have some good information. You can click your county and they have contacts to assist you.</p>
<p>laughable…</p>
<p>"If you are not exempt, the penalty for not having insurance is either a set amount of money or a percentage of your income—whichever is greater.</p>
<p>In 2014: $95 or 1% of your income (whichever is greater)
In 2015: $325 or 2% of your income
In 2016: $695 or 2.5% of your income"</p>
<p>"Yeah, because if you are a billionaire, that’s exactly what you want to do: forego the hundreds of thousands of dollars you can easily earn on your assets in order to get a tax break for a few thousand a year.’</p>
<p>Maybe billionaires won’t be bothered to care about such things, but there’s a lot more millionaires than billionaires, and they didn’t get there by being stupid. Many people structure their assets to avoid taxes anyways, regardless of health care. Just because your assets are increasing in value at a tremendous rate doesn’t mean that it is considered as income. Just suckers like you and me pay the full tax rate on our income.</p>
<p>While you folks were griping about the ACA, I checked my mailbox and, lo and behold, my insurance company sent me a rebate check for 2% of my premium dues. Letter says that refund is mandated by Obamacare, because only 78% of the premium dollars they collected last year went to health care costs. </p>
<p>So I deposited the money in my checking account.</p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<p>geeps,</p>
<p>When I first read about the penalties, i thought: we went all the way to the US Supreme Ct for that? Why bother?</p>
<p>I assume there must have been some sort of analysis into determining that those amounts would be sufficient motivators to buy into the exchanges, or that those were the amounts needed to make the plan work. Anyone who could pay $95 probably gets coverage free anyway. Also, don’t forget that those who don’t buy insurance will be billed for whatever services they seek.</p>
<p>A millionaire would have to appear to have an income of $80,000 or so to get any subsidy at all. And the subsidy at the top of the income cut-off is not much at all. Thus this whole thing about very high income people getting subsidies is so unlikely.</p>
<p>The real issue will be explaining to people how the system works and how to choose a good plan for them.</p>
<p>The NY Times has a new article on a cancer patient who will have to choose a new plan. She will save “at least $600 and possibly more than $1,100 a month,” but she is very uncertain and confused about the system. </p>
<p><a href=“Amid Political Fight, Confusion and Fear About New York’s Health Exchange - The New York Times”>Amid Political Fight, Confusion and Fear About New York’s Health Exchange - The New York Times;
<p>less care, higher premiums for most all states…just a few will be better off</p>
<p>geeps20, That does not appear to be the case. Perhaps it will, but the data don’t show that yet.</p>
<p>Moreover, about 75% of people buying through the exchanges will get subsidies, so they won’t be paying the sticker price.</p>
<p>The states where the government has been involved in developing the exchanges appear to be getting lower premiums. NY, CA and MD have lower premiums than before.</p>
<p>From the NYT article I quoted from above:</p>
<p>"Ms. Persky is a prime example of someone who will benefit most from the federal health care law, state officials and health care advocates say. With about $45,000 in income last year, or 191 percent of the federal poverty line, she and her husband, a used-car dealer, are paying $1,400 a month for limited coverage; they stand to save at least $600 and possibly more than $1,100 a month, when factoring in the new insurance rates and the laws upfront tax credits.</p>
<p>Unlike their current insurance plan, which excludes mental health and recently stopped covering Ms. Perskys Zoloft prescription, all 17 plans on the exchange are required to cover a full range of services."</p>
<p>it is the case, but believe what you will…the 3 states you mentioned are the exceptions.</p>
<p>geeps20, Most people will pay less for insurance purchased through the exchanges because 75% will get subsidies. And there are many who couldn’t get insurance because of pre-existing conditions who can get it now.</p>
<p>I don’t see you citing any statistics or including any links, just making claims without evidence.</p>
<p>The young adults who are staying on their parents’ insurance aren’t paying anything except co-pays and the like. A whole lot of them and their parents are very happy about that. And now preventive care is included without co-pays.</p>
<p>subsidies does not mean the premiums will be less, or better coverage.</p>
<p>How many states denied on pre-existing condition. My state couldn’t, and premiums were still reasonable, until ACA kicks in that is…50% increase for me.</p>
<p>preventive care was always covered with HD plans</p>
<p>I have not heard anything about our employer-sponsored plan yet, but I don’t really expect to. We have a $3600 per person deductible, and a $100 co-pay (both including prescriptions). Since we are all active and healthy (knock wood), it functions as a catastrophic only plan. I actually think it is great; we don’t go to the doctor unless we feel certain we need to, and we try to stay healthy to avoid the expense.</p>
<p>For my father with Medicare and private coverage, going to the doctor was the highlight of his week. He went regularly and often.</p>
<p>I have coverage through my employer with a low co-pay and I tend to go once a year. But I sure was glad I had insurance when I needed major surgery this year. If I hadn’t had the insurance, I would have had over $100,000 in bills, between the tests, surgery, hospital and medications. </p>
<p>The ACA is not perfect. But when I think of people who don’t have insurance and how they suffer, I’m glad it’s being implemented. At the same time, we should improve it over time.</p>
<p>‘Subsidies’ have been mentioned numerous times, in the context they’re good things. Which, I suppose they are, if you’re getting them, but they don’t just fall from the sky.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t a fair assessment of the cost of ACA - per individual and in the context of the promises that were made regarding it - include the cost shifting that the subsidies necessarily require? </p>
<p>The claim that all this is going to save money would appear to only possibly be true if medical treatments are… adjusted to fewer of them being performed.</p>
<p>Momfromme, I like your posts.</p>
<p>Rhode Island small business…
<a href=“http://www.chron.com/news/article/Small-biz-eyes-Obamacare-options-as-costs-mount-4695590.php[/url]”>http://www.chron.com/news/article/Small-biz-eyes-Obamacare-options-as-costs-mount-4695590.php</a></p>
<p><a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;
<p>"The claim that all this is going to save money would appear to only possibly be true if medical treatments are… adjusted to fewer of them being performed. "</p>
<p>It was always conceived of as a two-stage process: first, get everyone covered, get rid of pre-existing conditions, lifetime limits, etc., and then use the system where everyone is covered to bring down costs. Personally, I don’t think it will work, as ACA already gave away the store the private health insurers so that there are few carrots left, but bringing down costs was never conceived of as the first order of business, so one shouldn’t fault ACA for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>geeps, I’m not quite understanding what you’re saying. It wasn’t states who denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, it was the private insurance companies. Are you saying that in your state – prior to ACA – private insurance companies were prohibited from denying coverage or raising premiums based on pre-existing conditions? What state?</p>
<p>“as ACA already gave away the store the private health insurers so that there are few carrots left, but bringing down costs was never conceived of as the first order of business, so one shouldn’t fault ACA for that.”</p>
<p>It might have not been the first order of business, but it was sold again and again as a cost cutter. I think we can fault the people who wrote the ACA and the people who passed it as being at fault for making it a giveaway to the insurance companies, without regard to the cost. </p>
<p>Interesting to me that people think the exchanges will be cheaper because there are subsidies, when it sounds as if the coverage in most states will be more expensive. While people will be subsidized quite a bit, it doesn’t mean it’s cheaper, it just means that they don’t pay for it. As cat said, subsidies don’t just fall from the sky.</p>