<p>I really do wish we wouldn’t get into what is and is not fair. It’s nice to talk about the impact, details, etc of ACA without getting into judgement based issues like fairness. Suffice it to say that most people do not agree most of the time. What one of us considers important, another might not.</p>
<p>I do appreciate the advice and information many of you have provided me. You know that I am a bit stressed out by all of this but have answered my questions patiently - which I appreciate.</p>
Part of the reason for the ACA placing standards on insurance policies is that your choice, looking at the total population, has a higher total cost and risk than simply including maternity coverage to the policies. It may have worked out well for you, but that just points us back to the word “statistics” and the difference between data points and data sets - for every ten or so people who made the same decision you did, passing up maternity coverage but having children, one probably got financially destroyed.</p>
<p>It reminds me of people who live in hurricane zones without hurricane insurance - if their net costs from hurricane damage never exceed the cost of the insurance, they may count it as a win, even though the catastrophic costs that befell their neighbors (and could just as easily have hit them) were foreseeable and common.</p>
<p>These two progressive ladies who appeared in Bill Moyers claim the number of medical bankrupcies did NOT go down in Massachussettes after Romney care was implemented. They are both doctors.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I appreciate the links. We are still going to have some bankruptcy issues. </p>
<p>The analysis misses a few things… </p>
<p>Millions of people are going to be able to sign up for medicaid.
The silver plans cover more than 70 percent of the costs for many.
Looks like the metal plans cover a larger share of the cost of care than romneycare plans.
Mass has very expensive healthcare.</p>
<p>The population of Mass does have a higher income per capita than maybe all the states. That may play a part in actually keeping bankruptcies lower.</p>
<p>Without the caps… The cost of borrowing and the size of the debt will also be lower than they would be otherwise.</p>
<p>“From the point of view of the government (IRS), its all the same thing - it is revenue they collect, or not.”</p>
<p>I’m sure you can do the math that a $10K tax deduction and a 10K tax credit is a completely different revenue number to the IRS.</p>
<p>“And from the point of view of those of us who owe more money in taxes than the total amount of our potential subsidy – there is no difference. A tax credit is something that reduces the amount of taxes that we pay. Of course it’s different if someone is in the position of being owed a refund – but the point of the ACA tax credit is that you have to spend money to receive the credit. So its not as if anyone can sit back and do nothing and then rake in free money because they manipulate their income in some way.”</p>
<p>Someone could be very asset rich, choose to take very little of it in income, and receive a full subsidy for their health care. As the price of health care goes up, that will be a more common tax strategy. You could withdraw any money you need from a Roth IRA, and that is not considered income, just for one example. Everyone has a tax strategy of some sort. Even on this thread you can see people considering limiting their income to receive a subsidy.</p>
<p>I merely have the perspective that we don’t have enough money to do the things we’ve decided, and that I would prefer that young people are not paying what they cannot afford to support the wealthy elderly. No problem supporting the seniors who need help.</p>
<p>How many wealthy elderly people are there busdriver11? </p>
<p>How many young people are going to pay full pop for ACA? How many young people are going to receive subsidies?</p>
<p>I think the 3x cap argument is overblown. You dont think so. Provide me the facts that you used to come up with your conclusions. Maybe, I will change my mind.</p>
<p>At this point the questions are much more basic than the above discussion.</p>
<ol>
<li> How many people will actually enroll and pay?</li>
<li> How many people will be kicked off their current plans? How many of those people either won’t or won’t be able to sign up on the exchanges?</li>
<li> What will the demographics of the exchanges be?</li>
<li> What will the overall sticker shock be?</li>
<li> What will the doctor/hospital networks look like?</li>
<li> Next year, how many people with employer-provided coverage lose that?</li>
</ol>
<p>At this point, none of the signs look good.</p>
<p>I have a solution to make demographics younger. Repeal the part of the law that allows “children” under 27 years old to be kept on parents’ health insurance. Revert back to full time student rule or some variant of that. </p>
<p>Those who are not able to obtain their insurance through employer will end up on the exchange and those who cannot afford it will be subsidized. This tweak will increase the young and healthy population pool on exchanges, lowering everyone’s rates.</p>
Absolutely, but you can create a tax deduction and a tax credit that although they have different nominal numbers produce the identical savings to the taxpayer.</p>
<p>I thought I worded them in a rather straight forward way. These are the questions after all that will determine whether the law will even survive. </p>
<p>Oregon is in really bad shape. Their website doesn’t work at all and all the applications have to be done on paper. </p>
<p>The first real crisis for people comes Jan. 1. Who knows how many people who had insurance will lose it because they can’t sign up because the websites don’t work?</p>
<p>"WASHINGTON—The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.</p>
<p>The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.</p>
<p>While people typically accumulate assets as they age, this wealth gap is now more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for inflation.</p>
<p>The 47-to-1 wealth gap between old and young is believed by demographers to be the highest ever, even predating government records"</p>
<p>There’s just one article, dstark. Besides the assets owned, seniors get social security and medicare. Of course there are plenty of seniors struggling, but this is where the money is. And the ACA is another money transfer. Yes, some will get subsidies, but not all, and for some, not enough. The money has to come from somewhere.</p>
<p>Of course, Tatin has the more relevant questions.</p>
<p>“I thought I worded them in a rather straight forward way. These are the questions after all that will determine whether the law will even survive.”</p>
<p>No. You didnt word most of your questions in a neutral way. That is ok. You arent neutral.</p>