It's not like you'd be exempt from the requirement to have insurance, you'd just be denied the reduced price.
My understanding is that the worst case scenario would only gut subsidies for people who live in states that didn't set up their own exchange (most Republican governors who did so to protest the Presidency).
My understanding is that the worst case scenario would only gut subsidies for people who live in states that didn't set up their own exchange (most Republican governors who did so to protest the Presidency).
It's not like you'd be exempt from the requirement to have insurance, you'd just be denied the reduced price.
This isn't correct. If the plaintiffs win, then nobody in states with federal exchanges would be required to pay the penalty for not having insurance.
My understanding is that the worst case scenario would only gut subsidies for people who live in states that didn't set up their own exchange (most Republican governors who did so to protest the Presidency).
34 out of 50 states use federal exchanges - that's most of the country, and a pretty horrible 'worst case scenario.' Also when states made the decision whether or not to set up their own exchanges, they did so thinking that there wouldn't be any downside to using the federal exchange. Otherwise they might have made a different decision.
My understanding is that the worst case scenario would only gut subsidies for people who live in states that didn't set up their own exchange (most Republican governors who did so to protest the Presidency).
I think I'm fine with that outcome. If your state government doesn't want you to have subsidized health insurance, you can either pay full price or move to a better state. It's not like you'd be exempt from the requirement to have insurance, you'd just be denied the reduced price.
We're already heading towards two distinct Americas. This would just be one more step in that direction, and I think it will be pretty clear in a few decades which one will have become more prosperous. I won't even attempt to predict which one it is, I'm just saying that over time some sort of pattern will emerge that reflects the outcome of these decisions.
If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, nothing is stopping these states from establishing their own exchanges, aside from continued Republican obstructionism. And if the citizens of these states allow their Republican state representatives to keep their jobs after their inaction costs their constituents a valuable federal tax credit that costs the state government nothing, I'd say the people of these states are getting the government they deserve. I won't shed too many tears for them if that happens.
Meanwhile, the ACA isn't going anywhere. As strongly as the Republicans oppose it, the Democrats aren't willing to repeal it. As long as Democrats retain the presidency or filibuster power in the Senate, the law stays.
its pretty clear that the intent was that the subsidies were intended for everyone. However the supreme court doesn't need to rule on that. it can rule that the wording is unclear. I understand the challenge - but this isn't about people and how they are affected - its all about politics. I don't even mind the politics but for the ACA its just no, no, no from the republicans. Challenge away as to how this thing works - but in the meantime how about some solutions or alternatives as well.
They have nothing - its all well and good to spout off about affordable insurance but they aren't actually doing anything to make this happen. Its all about destructive politics and most of the party would rather see the act fail than actually do anything about any sensible healthcare policy. The healthcare costs are out of control and something positive has to be done - just destroying whats in places because you have called it obamacare is failing the people they represent.
"four legs good, two legs bad" is what I'm reminded of here. which of course will change to four legs good, two legs better when it suits them.
We're already heading towards two distinct Americas. This would just be one more step in that direction, and I think it will be pretty clear in a few decades which one will have become more prosperous. I won't even attempt to predict which one it is, I'm just saying that over time some sort of pattern will emerge that reflects the outcome of these decisions.
We're already heading towards two distinct Americas. This would just be one more step in that direction, and I think it will be pretty clear in a few decades which one will have become more prosperous. I won't even attempt to predict which one it is, I'm just saying that over time some sort of pattern will emerge that reflects the outcome of these decisions.
Hasn't this already happened? Isn't the pattern clear?
The subsidies may well get struck down, but the old system will not magically return. Grossly unaffordable healthcare will be far too politically radioactive on both sides, and something will get done to fix it. My prediction is that Congress will agree to extend subsidies through the end of the year while they negotiate a long-term reform. The rhetoric will be at full blast, but both sides will eventually compromise before the election year.
For prospective early retirees, I believe the important lesson here is to count on laws you may depend on today to change several times during your lifetime. Don't get pissed or discouraged, and don't plan a retirement that depends on a very narrow set of circumstances to be viable. Be like water, my friend.
But, to the OP's question, I am a little torn on this. I will benefit, but I think it is a poor law. I think govt is inefficient. Along the lines of all the talk about Iran/Israel the same saying applies "No deal is better than a bad deal". I wouldn't be surprised of Roberts pusses out again and cannot judge the law as written.
But someone retiring at 33 isn't what the subsidies are designed for.
But, to the OP's question, I am a little torn on this. I will benefit, but I think it is a poor law. I think govt is inefficient. Along the lines of all the talk about Iran/Israel the same saying applies "No deal is better than a bad deal". I wouldn't be surprised of Roberts pusses out again and cannot judge the law as written.
I too will benefit. With the subsidies, I may get to RE a year or two earlier. But someone retiring at 33 isn't what the subsidies are designed for.
I disagree with the law, I don't think I need as much coverage as they're requiring, if I got some low-cost catastrophic plan, that would be fine with me. And yes, I think government is stepping in where they don't have any need to, but that is out of my control. But since it is now required, I will use the system to get as much of a subsidy that I can.
Luckily I'm waiting a couple more years to RE, so some of this can get a little more hammered out.
But someone retiring at 33 isn't what the subsidies are designed for.
Yes it is. You could almost say that is exactly what the subsidies are designed for. They are designed to make health insurance more affordable for people who lack employer-sponsored coverage and who satisfy the specified income thresholds and limitations. They are designed to partially untether the availability of health insurance from the possession of employment, artificially knotted together in the United States only by reason of historical accident in the way the labor markets and insurance industries co-evolved in this country. They are designed to give American workers the freedom to leave their jobs without fear of losing access to affordable health care, whether they do so in order to pursue other gainful employment or, as in our case, extremely early retirement (and, in the process, open up a job opportunity for another individual who would love to take it).
Just another example of govt not anticipating the consequences of policy.
I think you meant Medicaid - health insurance for poor people - and not Medicare, which is for old people and isn't means tested at all.
The Supreme Court case imperils the continued viability of the ACA for all Americans, as discussed in this thread (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/supreme-court-to-opine-on-obamacare-tax-credit/) (which has become the central clearing house for discussion on this topic in the forum and, through a rare moderator misstep, has been buried in the Off Topic subforum).
But, to the OP's question, I am a little torn on this. I will benefit, but I think it is a poor law. I think govt is inefficient. Along the lines of all the talk about Iran/Israel the same saying applies "No deal is better than a bad deal". I wouldn't be surprised of Roberts pusses out again and cannot judge the law as written.
I too will benefit. With the subsidies, I may get to RE a year or two earlier. But someone retiring at 33 isn't what the subsidies are designed for.
I disagree with the law, I don't think I need as much coverage as they're requiring, if I got some low-cost catastrophic plan, that would be fine with me. And yes, I think government is stepping in where they don't have any need to, but that is out of my control. But since it is now required, I will use the system to get as much of a subsidy that I can.
Luckily I'm waiting a couple more years to RE, so some of this can get a little more hammered out.
As you should. The govt is horrible at foreseeing unintended consequences. Congress really, to a large extent, is a bunch of idiots. Rather to be more precise, probably somewhat intelligent people, but entirely uneducated in economics or logic. They study things like public policy, international law, etc.
For the most part, they do not know how to think critically.
I do not understand.
The government paying for some people's premium is not lowering costs.
It is only moving the costs from some % of the people to everyone's tax dollars.
If anything needs to be done it is attempts to fix the actual costs.
Just to make up ideas that is probably bad;
- Ensure that all health care costs (estimates) are provided to customers by providers up front.
- Enforce non-monopoly rules upon emergency services like ambulances and hospitals.
Point is, this is about making tax payers paying for other people's bills. It has nothing to do with lowering the actual costs of the health care.
Point is, this is about making tax payers paying for other people's bills. It has nothing to do with lowering the actual costs of the health care.
When we can't even get a goddamn bill on slavery passed because of some ideologs, it's not a stretch to realize that the current state of politics has nothing to do with studying economics.
The Supreme Court case imperils the continued viability of the ACA for all Americans, as discussed in this thread (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/supreme-court-to-opine-on-obamacare-tax-credit/) (which has become the central clearing house for discussion on this topic in the forum and, through a rare moderator misstep, has been buried in the Off Topic subforum).
Hear Hear!
We've got a system where really life threatening emergencies and serious problems are treated for free, but the preventative/basic/ongoing care that might prevent them are not. That's maybe the dumbest way to run things I can imagine and it creates a ton of misery and throws otherwise useful members of society into poverty essentially for being unlucky.
Just do one of the following:
-Repeal EMTALA and make all medical care completely private. You pay for your services, no subsidies, no nothing.
-Medicare for all/universal healthcare.
I do not understand.
The government paying for some people's premium is not lowering costs.
It is only moving the costs from some % of the people to everyone's tax dollars.
If anything needs to be done it is attempts to fix the actual costs.
Just to make up ideas that is probably bad;
- Ensure that all health care costs (estimates) are provided to customers by providers up front.
- Enforce non-monopoly rules upon emergency services like ambulances and hospitals.
Point is, this is about making tax payers paying for other people's bills. It has nothing to do with lowering the actual costs of the health care.
That's why it is called insurance. Making everyone pay home insurance is also moving costs from some % of people to everyone, and doesn't reduce the cost of having your house burn down.
Having something run or funded by the government is the least efficient and least effective way of solving a problem.
Having something run or funded by the government is the least efficient and least effective way of solving a problem.
That must be why we entrust our national defense to private militias?
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid are lifelines to many people, and the government provides these programs extremely efficiently.
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid are lifelines to many people, and the government provides these programs extremely efficiently.
Nonsense! Healthcare is obviously best when it is 100% privately run.
Unless you're a veteran. Or senior citizen. Or disabled. Or a child, or poor. In those cases socialized healthcare is fine.
But between the ages of 18 and 62 for healthy people outside of the military, socialized healthcare is clearly the devil's work.
Wit a minute.. Not American = the Devil's work.. wow, glad I have been enlightened.
There are several problems that the US faces that European countries just don't consider.
The UK may have a well run system for healthcare, but the UK is also roughly 1/5 the population of the US, and the UK has 10x the population density. There are several problems that would have to be addressed concerning how to scale similar operations in Europe, and at the same time deal with a sparse population much like Canada.
If states decided healthcare for themselves, it would be much easier to implement. At a federal level, the simple fact of the matter is that it hasn't been done before at this size to an American quality of life.
Yep, I got that message from your original post. My only point was that sol's post about socialized healthcare equaling the devil's work to which you were responding was itself sarcastic (meaning that your sarcastic response was in agreement with sol), and I wasn't sure whether or not you were aware of that (and I'm still not sure...)
Damn this medium of communication and its inability to properly transmit sarcasm!
the simple fact of the matter is that it hasn't been done before at this size to an American quality of life.
It depends. Is this interest taxable? If so, then it will count as income for ACA purposes. Pretty much any other taxable income you have will count as well. If this income is between 138% and 400% of the federal poverty level for your family size, then you would be eligible for subsidies.
$20k is about 170% of the federal poverty level for a single person, so you would be eligible for subsidies in that case. $20k is only about 125% of the federal poverty level for a two-person family, so you would be eligible for Medicaid in that case, but not ACA subsidies. The same is true for families larger than two.
Any billionaire who only earns $20k from their investments in a typical year is doing something terribly wrong.Not if they have a IRA balance in the hundreds of millions. :)
It depends. Is this interest taxable? If so, then it will count as income for ACA purposes. Pretty much any other taxable income you have will count as well. If this income is between 138% and 400% of the federal poverty level for your family size, then you would be eligible for subsidies.
$20k is about 170% of the federal poverty level for a single person, so you would be eligible for subsidies in that case. $20k is only about 125% of the federal poverty level for a two-person family, so you would be eligible for Medicaid in that case, but not ACA subsidies. The same is true for families larger than two.
That's very wrong. So someone with a billion in the bank who only withdraws a small amount of interest can live comfortably and mooch off the system :P
Any billionaire who only earns $20k from their investments in a typical year is doing something terribly wrong.Not if they have a IRA balance in the hundreds of millions. :)
That's very wrong. So someone with a billion in the bank who only withdraws a small amount of interest can live comfortably and mooch off the system :P
People who hate the ACA only hate it because it was enacted by Democrats. If it was enacted by Republicans, they would be crowing about how wonderful it is.
People who hate the ACA only hate it because it was enacted by Democrats. If it was enacted by Republicans, they would be crowing about how wonderful it is.
I have ZERO political ties to either side. I think forcing ANYONE to buy anything or pay a fine is ridiculous.
It's because if you get hit buy a car or have a heart attack then the hospital is FORCED to treat you. It's funny how all the people who think the insurance mandate is outrageous don't seem to have a problem with the mandate to treat (EMTALA). Do you think that treatment comes free?
Personally I wouldn't want to live in a place where people were left to die on the sidewalk outside of an ER because they couldn't pay. Therefore I think the insurance mandate is totally, completely reasonable.
Forcing people to buy things is not in the constitution
Forcing people to buy things is not in the constitution and private industry should not be profiting from government mandate.
Or maybe all of these laws are derived from the authority of the Legislative Branch to, you know, legislate? Like, make new laws and stuff?
That's what this is: a tax where you owe a certain percentage of your income if you fail to purchase a particular product.
That's what this is: a tax where you owe a certain percentage of your income if you fail to purchase a particular product.
I as a citizen have no issues with paying taxes. Taxes are there to pay for services provided by the government to its people. The government should not however be telling me I have to go pay for a private product or pay a fine. They could tax me for providing said product which is entirely a different result. It puts the weight on people and does not treat them equally which is why it should be illegal. Alas that's not what the supreme court ruled and it's really quite wrong.
If I asked a 5 year old to either give Jimmy some cookies and get a deck of cards in return or give me some cookies and get nothing in return which do you think that 5 year old is going to choose? How is that a choice?
For what it's worth, I agree that taxing people for failing to buy a product from a profit-making enterprise is poor form. I realize the mandate is necessary to make the system function at even an arguably acceptable level, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
always interesting to me when a community like this full of independent and self-reliable people think allowing for increased govt in something is a good idea.
always interesting to me when a community like this full of independent and self-reliable people think allowing for increased govt in something is a good idea.
my long term prediction is the us avg lifespan declines for the first time ever as the cases of worse care, more medical and surgical treatments and limited or denied and a steady undercurrent of no new jobs created.
For what it's worth, I agree that taxing people for failing to buy a product from a profit-making enterprise is poor form. I realize the mandate is necessary to make the system function at even an arguably acceptable level, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
It may help with your cognitive dissonance to mentally reframe the "tax on people who fail to buy insurance" as a "non-tax on people who do buy insurance," since they are functionally equivalent.
To illustrate (in reverse): people who buy electric vehicles get a tax credit. This can be reframed as a tax on everyone who fails to buy an electric vehicle (because those people are not getting the benefit of the tax credit), in which case you could then argue, "hey, that's not fair, the government is taxing me because I'm chosing not to buy an electric vehicle!"
always interesting to me when a community like this full of independent and self-reliable people think allowing for increased govt in something is a good idea.
Wow, after the parade of sarcasm unleashed earlier in this thread after someone made the narrow-by-comparison claim that "[h]aving something run or funded by the government is the least efficient and least effective way of solving a problem," I can't wait to read the skewering remarks that your broader anarchistic comment will surely attract!
I'm sorry, but this is very incorrect. Congress can't just enact laws about whatever it wants. Every law must have some basis in authority explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution.
I'm sorry, but this is very incorrect. Congress can't just enact laws about whatever it wants. Every law must have some basis in authority explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution.
I'm sorry, but this is very incorrect. The Constitution does not provide authority for all of our laws, it provides limits on government by specifying the things it is NOT allowed to do. ...
The "this is incorrect" arguments can find support on both sides in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers. Enjoy....
| In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. Nearly two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall observed that "the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted" to the Federal Government "is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist." In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries. The Federal Government "is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers." That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers... And the Federal Government "can exercise only the powers granted to it." ... If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. |
People who hate the ACA only hate it because it was enacted by Democrats. If it was enacted by Republicans, they would be crowing about how wonderful it is.
I have ZERO political ties to either side. I think forcing ANYONE to buy anything or pay a fine is ridiculous.
I also think that both sides need to get their heads out of their asses and be much more mustashian. We could have given every citizen in America free healthcare 3 times over for the price of what we're spending on spying on our own people and starting trouble in the world.
This would bother me less if the rest of the law treated Americans more like real adults. The type of plans that you can buy to comply with the individual mandate are frustratingly limited. Real high-deductible plans are apparently no longer good enough. An individual plan can have out-of-pocket maximums no higher than $6,600. Come on! Maybe the average American can't fathom spending that much on medical care in a year without going bankrupt, but I could probably make a $10-20k deductible plus 10% coinsurance up to another $10-20k work and would like to be able to see that type of plan advertised alongside all of the shiny metals. Call it a tin plan or something. And they're not allowed to sell me a plan where I have to pay even a token co-pay for "preventive" services? What gives?
It depends. Is this interest taxable? If so, then it will count as income for ACA purposes. Pretty much any other taxable income you have will count as well. If this income is between 138% and 400% of the federal poverty level for your family size, then you would be eligible for subsidies.
$20k is about 170% of the federal poverty level for a single person, so you would be eligible for subsidies in that case. $20k is only about 125% of the federal poverty level for a two-person family, so you would be eligible for Medicaid in that case, but not ACA subsidies. The same is true for families larger than two.
That's very wrong. So someone with a billion in the bank who only withdraws a small amount of interest can live comfortably and mooch off the system :P
The chances of that happening are extremely remote. If the government wanted to prevent all cases like that, then they would've used wealth as the standard instead of income. But if you think the ACA is a bloated government program now, consider that they'd probably need 10 times the people to handle the wealth calculations. And the 99.999% of the general public to whom this doesn't apply would each get to spend an extra 10-24 hours filling out paperwork, having it verified, and calculating what their subsidy should be. (Does the hottub count? What about the lawn mower? Only appreciating assets? What about mobile homes? etc)
Or instead, they could just use something simple like income, where it's already defined by the IRS and everyone is familiar with. But like you said, the downside is that one or two billionaires might get a tiny subsidy. BTW, it's not interest withdrawn, it's interest earned. So knock that percentage of people "very wrong" down even further.
I think it's incredible that the political class is so wrapped up in this. Every other first world country has public medicare for its citizens except the US and at a lower cost than the US system today. The status quo and vested interests in the US are so powerful that it seems almost impossible to correct this.
I find it amazing that the politicians argue over this when its so obviously a good thing. They should band together and develop a more effective system instead of trying to repeal the ACA.
People who hate the ACA only hate it because it was enacted by Democrats. If it was enacted by Republicans, they would be crowing about how wonderful it is.
I have ZERO political ties to either side. I think forcing ANYONE to buy anything or pay a fine is ridiculous.
I also think that both sides need to get their heads out of their asses and be much more mustashian. We could have given every citizen in America free healthcare 3 times over for the price of what we're spending on spying on our own people and starting trouble in the world.
I can't think of another tax or insurance that you cannot legally choose to avoid, no matter how impractical that choice may be.
Sales tax? Buy nothing.
Income tax? Do not work. Live under a bridge, eat out of dumpsters.
Property tax? Don't own property.
Vehicle insurance? Don't drive or own a motor vehicle.
ACA? You're in, or else you pay a fine.
Any billionaire who only earns $20k from their investments in a typical year is doing something terribly wrong.Not if they have a IRA balance in the hundreds of millions. :)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It depends. Is this interest taxable? If so, then it will count as income for ACA purposes. Pretty much any other taxable income you have will count as well. If this income is between 138% and 400% of the federal poverty level for your family size, then you would be eligible for subsidies.
$20k is about 170% of the federal poverty level for a single person, so you would be eligible for subsidies in that case. $20k is only about 125% of the federal poverty level for a two-person family, so you would be eligible for Medicaid in that case, but not ACA subsidies. The same is true for families larger than two.
That's very wrong. So someone with a billion in the bank who only withdraws a small amount of interest can live comfortably and mooch off the system :P
That's very wrong. So someone with a billion in the bank who only withdraws a small amount of interest can live comfortably and mooch off the system :P
Funny how no one who thinks Obamacare tax credit recipients are "mooching off the system" seems to feel the same way about people (including wealthy people) with employer-sponsored health insurance, which is also government-subsidized.
my long term prediction is the us avg lifespan declines for the first time ever as the cases of worse care, more medical and surgical treatments and limited or denied and a steady undercurrent of no new jobs created.
This would bother me less if the rest of the law treated Americans more like real adults. The type of plans that you can buy to comply with the individual mandate are frustratingly limited. Real high-deductible plans are apparently no longer good enough. An individual plan can have out-of-pocket maximums no higher than $6,600. Come on! Maybe the average American can't fathom spending that much on medical care in a year without going bankrupt, but I could probably make a $10-20k deductible plus 10% coinsurance up to another $10-20k work and would like to be able to see that type of plan advertised alongside all of the shiny metals. Call it a tin plan or something. And they're not allowed to sell me a plan where I have to pay even a token co-pay for "preventive" services? What gives?
If we're going to continue with capitalist health care, we should be providing customers (patients) more incentives to shop around for lower prices, and more ability to actually predict the price before they agree to treatment. Shopping around is obviously not feasible for emergency care, but most health care is not an emergency. Instead we're going the other way, where everyone will have a plan where they don't have to care at all about what "preventive" visits cost, and most major illnesses will blow past your out-of-pocket max so fast that you once again have no reason to care about the costs. This gives doctors freedom to keep raising their prices. Insurance companies will go right along with it because they can take a higher amount of profit when they're paying a higher amount of medical bills, and they'll gladly pass the cost along to their customers through higher premiums (which will be subsidized by the federal government for an increasing number of people as prices increase).
Meanwhile the people at most doctor's offices have literally no way to tell you what a procedure will cost before it happens, so the best you can do if you're charged too much is try a different doctor next time. As big as the medical industry is about obtaining "informed consent" regarding the medical consequences of a procedure, they try as hard as possible so that you are uninformed about the financial consequences.
So many things need to change, but both sides of the Congress are so entrenched about this issue that no substantive policy changes are likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
Forcing people to buy things is not in the constitution and private industry should not be profiting from government mandate.
1. Most of our laws are not in the Constitution. Forcing people to have a driver's license is not in the Constitution. Social Security and Medicare are not in the Constitution. Unemployment benefits, all forms of taxation, National Parks, all absent. Do you really think National Parks are a violation of our freedom because they're not in the Constitution?
Or maybe all of these laws are derived from the authority of the Legislative Branch to, you know, legislate? Like, make new laws and stuff?
2. Protecting the profits of private industry (and the economy at large) is the very reason government exists. Everything the US government does is aimed at the ultimate purpose of helping private corporations make money. Sometimes it's pretty blatant, like tariffs on imported goods that protect US producers, and sometimes it's more subtle, like widespread public education that teaches kids how to sit down, shut up, and follow directions so that their future corporate overlords will have a ready pool of qualified workers for their businesses.
Hell, we even have a whole government agency solely dedicated to helping new businesses get up and running so they can make money. If government shouldn't be helping private industry to profit, then I suppose that you oppose all SBA loans?
Sol takes it a little to the edge to make his point,
Sol takes it a little to the edge to make his point,
Yea, you know how I do.
So...the decision is in. Is anyone going to sleep a little easier tonight? FIRE sooner*?I believe this is true about Tricare. I use the VA (service-connected disability) and because of that can not get ACA subsidies. It's either one or the other, not both.
I'd been waiting on this news to help with expense planning, but I came across another wrinkle recently. As one eligible for Tricare Retired Reserve (at a cost of ~$5k/year), it seems I may be ineligible for ACA subsidies. Anyone know for sure/can point me to a reference?
* OK, maybe not that, since this is the post-FIRE group...
So...the decision is in. Is anyone going to sleep a little easier tonight? FIRE sooner*?
I'd been waiting on this news to help with expense planning, but I came across another wrinkle recently. As one eligible for Tricare Retired Reserve (at a cost of ~$5k/year), it seems I may be ineligible for ACA subsidies. Anyone know for sure/can point me to a reference?
* OK, maybe not that, since this is the post-FIRE group...
So...the decision is in. Is anyone going to sleep a little easier tonight? FIRE sooner*?
I'd been waiting on this news to help with expense planning, but I came across another wrinkle recently. As one eligible for Tricare Retired Reserve (at a cost of ~$5k/year), it seems I may be ineligible for ACA subsidies. Anyone know for sure/can point me to a reference?
* OK, maybe not that, since this is the post-FIRE group...
It's definitely a big relief for me. The status of the ACA is the biggest remaining hurdle to my projected 1/1/19 FIRE. But as Forummm says, we still need to get past whatever happens after the next presidential election. Personally, I think it will get increasingly difficult from this point on to eliminate or gut the ACA. I saw a poll out the other day that suggests public opinion is starting to turn in favor of the law as it becomes clearer that it really is reducing the ranks of the uninsured and is starting to at least slow the growth in costs. Upholding the subsidies essentially turns the ACA into back-door single-payer. I think once people get a taste of that, they will wonder how they ever lived without the ACA.
...Upholding the subsidies essentially turns the ACA into back-door single-payer.
O.K., I over-reached a bit in the way I worded my comparison of ACA to single-payer. Obviously, in its current state, it is nowhere near the single-payer systems that most developed countries have. But I think it will trend in that direction over time as working people start to realize that a heavily subsidized exchange policy competes quite favorably (cost-wise) with their expensive employer-provided plan. As more people start using subsidized plans, the taxpayer picks up more and more of the total cost of health care. The government becomes the 800 lb gorilla in the health care market, which gives it a lot of negotiating power (whether it will choose to use that power is another matter). The cap on administrative cost and the mandate to provide real coverage for everyone limits the extent to which insurance companies can make money by abusing their policy holders, so they have an incentive to negotiate with providers for lower prices (they've already been doing this for many years - check out your next explanation of benefits statement to see the difference between what the provider says the service should cost vs. what the insurance company will actually pay for it).
Yes, it's still a sucky system, and I'm still pissed at Obama for taking real single-payer off the table at the beginning of the negotiations. I think we'll get there eventually, but it's likely to be a long, painful road. We'll need some new regulations that force providers to accept exchange policies. Unfortunately it's politically infeasible to just euthanize the insurance companies and for-profit hospitals and move on.
Yes, it's still a sucky system, and I'm still pissed at Obama for taking real single-payer off the table at the beginning of the negotiations. I think we'll get there eventually, but it's likely to be a long, painful road.
Then again.. Maybe one day pigs will actually fly as well.
Then again.. Maybe one day pigs will actually fly as well.
We got a black president, gay marriage is legal, pot will be, and you think we won't? Shit happens that you don't expect. It might not be this year, but it will happen eventually.
Then again.. Maybe one day pigs will actually fly as well.
We got a black president, gay marriage is legal, pot will be, and you think we won't?
Then again.. Maybe one day pigs will actually fly as well.
We got a black president, gay marriage is legal, pot will be, and you think we won't?
Well shit, when you say it like that it's no wonder ISIS hates us so much.
About to pull the plug and the ACA makes me a lot more comfortable about my healthcare options right now. But a very quick scan of the comments and it seems like people are to focused on whether they like/dislike ACA and not the process that got us here.
The ACA was done via a backdoor mechanism so the D's could shove it thru congress. The pretzel the Supremes made of logic to try and keep it going in the first challenge opened it to another challenge that is still pending. Even those that bent over backwards to approve it this time acknowledged that it was passed in a bizarre manner and was poor legislation. It is very clear that few legislators read the thing (how could they given the length and the time frame they had) but that may be business as usual and now more people know it.
I guess my main point is which ever way you lean on the legislation itself, it is now very clear, in my opinion, that the Supreme Court is very broken. The law is not interpreted as written. Congress is broken-- since they don't really write or even read the laws, the Supreme Court can't really look at original intent. The Supreme Court no longer holds the moral high ground--when you helped craft the legislation, you should not be in a position to rule on its legality.
I think its the flying pigs they'll be having more of an issue with...Then again.. Maybe one day pigs will actually fly as well.
We got a black president, gay marriage is legal, pot will be, and you think we won't?
Well shit, when you say it like that it's no wonder ISIS hates us so much.
I differ slightly. The first part of the ACA was passed through normal Congressional activity (not reconciliation). But when Kennedy died, they still had to pass the fixes they intended to pass all along. But the Republicans were still filibustering it. So they could only pass the budget items through the normal reconciliation process. And some things never got fixed as a result. And in any bill of any complexity, there are going to be typos--like these 4 words were. That's just reality. Normally the typos would be 1) ignored and not sued over because they were obviously typos, 2) fixed by some unanimous consent motion or 3) a court would say "yeah these are clearly typos". The absurd partisan atmosphere around this bill made the first 2 go atypically. So the 3rd one had to be invoked--at a great waste of everyone's time.
I don't think the SCOTUS decisions on any of the ACA cases were "bending over backwards" or "pretzel logic". You may not like them (I don't like some aspects of them). But they were all reasonable. And not that atypical for court cases. There's all kinds of weird stuff and unintended consequences with legislation. Lots of typos or things they didn't consider. It happens all the time. Maybe you're just not familiar with it. Only a few high profile cases out of the hundreds of thousands of lawsuits filed each year become news.
SCOTUS didn't help craft the legislation. That's not a reasonable point of view. They just decided between conflicting interpretations of the law. Like courts do as their job every day.
So it's on the repeal side to have a DAMN GOOD replacement ready and waiting. Maybe that exists, but if it does they sure don't talk about it much.
Thing is, if you really want to go down the rabbit hole of appealing every tiny technicality and typo to SCOTUS, you really basically have admitted you have no useful ideas.
The last three comments have proved my point. While you may like the ACA, or prefer it to its alternatives, or decry the lack of alternatives, the system has broken down. We don't discuss and work within the legal framework anymore. The system is broken from bottom to top. The SC doesn't just interpret law. The congress and president give lip service, if that, to the constitution, the public wants what they want by any means needed.
We have the means to change even the legal framework if that is what we want to do. The Constitution is a good framework but its not sacred. Still, we refuse to change it or say "It's too hard to change." So we are becoming a lawless society. The law means whatever they say it means at this moment in time.
Ok, what's your constitutional amendment suggestion that will help with providing health care?
Ok, what's your constitutional amendment suggestion that will help with providing health care?The first question is does the Constitution allow the federal government to require or even regulate healthcare?
Ok, what's your constitutional amendment suggestion that will help with providing health care?The first question is does the Constitution allow the federal government to require or even regulate healthcare?
This is not a question. SCOTUS has already decided that the federal government can levy a tax on people who do not have health insurance. And similarly with regulation of the industry.
Name three areas of our lives that the tenth amendment prohibits the feds from interfering with and reserves to the states. I can't think of one
Name three areas of our lives that the tenth amendment prohibits the feds from interfering with and reserves to the states. I can't think of one
1. Driver's licenses
2. Concealed carry permits
3. Health care exchanges, unless the state declines to do so in which case the federal government steps in.
That took about nine seconds. I bet you and I could both think of a few more without trying too hard.
Yeah, employment should have nothing to do with health care (other than providing salary which you can use to pay for it, if you want). How would you go about doing that? Make it illegal? Or just remove the tax deductibility of benefits for employers?
We're going on ACA in about a month too, cheers!
-W
The last three comments have proved my point. While you may like the ACA, or prefer it to its alternatives, or decry the lack of alternatives, the system has broken down. We don't discuss and work within the legal framework anymore. The system is broken from bottom to top. The SC doesn't just interpret law. The congress and president give lip service, if that, to the constitution, the public wants what they want by any means needed.
We have the means to change even the legal framework if that is what we want to do. The Constitution is a good framework but its not sacred. Still, we refuse to change it or say "It's too hard to change." So we are becoming a lawless society. The law means whatever they say it means at this moment in time.
I think you are way over stating your case. Congress clearly meant for there to be functioning insurance exchanges in each state. There was one phrase that might have suggested something different, but maybe not. The court looked at it and concluded that Congress meant for there to be functioning insurance exchanges in each state. Courts make these types of rulings all the time when portions of laws or different laws conflict with each other. Been that way since day one.
And by the way, your objections as to how laws are made and interpreted by the courts are not indications of a lawless society. They are indications you don't like the way laws are made and interpreted by the courts. You might have some good points in there, but they get drowned in the over-the-top hyperbole. We're not a lawless nation. C'mon.
Yeah, employment should have nothing to do with health care (other than providing salary which you can use to pay for it, if you want). How would you go about doing that? Make it illegal? Or just remove the tax deductibility of benefits for employers?
We're going on ACA in about a month too, cheers!
-W
we are not following our laws anymore. more and more people are breaking laws because they just don't mean much anymore. Maybe its always been this way and we are now really getting a good blow by blow account of how the country has always been run.