|
Sarion posted:2) Business Mandate. Businesses over a certain size will be mandated to provide insurance or pay a fine per employee beyond the first 50. However, they have another option. The business can give their employee a voucher to use to pick their own plan from the Exchange; if they do this they don't get fined. This one in specific is one of those incredibly dumb cliffs congress is so fond of. It quite literally places a hiring wall at 99 employees (49?). Huge businesses get good group rate discounts, small startups say 'gently caress healthcare' and pay nothing, so it's a squeeze only on a few specific size businesses. It'd be much better served with a graduated penalty for not providing insurance. It's honestly the one PPACA argument I can't refute when talking to business owners, because it is just so ineptly implemented.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
I haven't figured out yet if I'm completely hosed by Robert's version of the PPACA or not. Living in Florida, and landing in the gap between old-medicaid and the presumptive new medicaid cutoff point, I don't make enough money (Ha!) to qualify for subsidies, but the shambling hate-golem we have as a governor has refused to expand (He says he's for it but he hasn't applied any pressure at all on the legislature, so effectively he gets to be on both sides of the issue.) I personally am insured (I have a 3-man business, we make just enough that I have a moderate-deductible plan, but nothing for family), and my kids fall under CHIP, but my wife is screwed. Once again it goes to show that hard walls in legislation are incredibly loving stupid. There was zero reason for a lower-bound on the subsidy - if people qualified for free medicaid they'd either take it, or for whatever reason pay out of pocket for private insurance and take the subsidy. Either way, putting a lower bound made no sense assuming the medicaid expansion, and it's actively harmful without it. Same deal with the 99 employee cliff, another legislative bit of stupidity - a company with 100 employees has astronomically higher costs than one with 99. Yes, every company "should" provide health care, but they don't. So mandate it for everybody, don't mandate it at all, or phase in the fine - but hard walls are the worst possible choice.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Devor posted:Some people have mentioned that being optimistic about your wages for the next year, enough that they bump you out of the Medicaid bracket, would let you access the subsidies on the exchange. If it turns out that you don't find a job that lets you earn enough, people are assuming that the government will not be chasing down poor people because they didn't make enough money, to try to recover the subsidy that they weren't supposed to get because they didn't make enough money. I really hope people do this, because nothing will look better for Obama then having the IRS prosecute people for being too poor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The issue isn't whether Noah and WJ say different things; it's that liberals and Dems are now trying to distance themselves from a conservative healthcare plan with its roots in the Heritage Foundation plan, as Krugman delineates, while a few months ago they were using that as an ACA selling point. You've sourced half of this - that they were calling it a republican plan. Even Obama pointed out the heritage roots (Politifact) but clicking on your links I don't see anyone running away from that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:^^^ That they're pretty sure they'll eventually get HHS to approve "modified" Medicaid expansion, as it has to date in some of those states, that essentially voucherizes Medicaid or puts onerous responsibilities on recipients. The nice thing about articles you've read in the last week would be that you could link them. So far the most "running away" I've seen is the un-sourced comparison image that was posted earlier. On topic, I got some great news about Obamacare: I'm not going to be fined for being a poor, hurray. I'm insured through my small business, but I can't afford to cover my wife. Unfortunately, I live in Florida, and while she "would" be covered my medicaid, and Rick Scott is an evil shithead who only "supports" expansion now that it can't possibly happen. So no medicaid, and no subsudy. But the website has assured me that I don't have to pay a fine, so yay, I just go bankrupt if anything happens.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
Reik posted:I have no medical degree so I have no idea what the difference is between a top of the line MRI and a regular MRI. I do know that the machines are expensive though, and I understand the finance behind getting a good return on investing in additional capital. On the plus side, since we're venting all the available helium to space with no attempt at recovery nobody will have to worry about MRIs after this generation anyway. I'm trying to figure out if I win or lose with ACA repeal. I'm in a non-expansion state, so my family all falls into the abyss of GOP obstructionism. Kids are poor enough to be covered by the state, but my wife's insurance plan falls under "don't get sick. Ever.". I've got a grandfathered pre-ACA plan through work that sucks but sucks less than the ACA-compliant plans the insurers keep trying to foist on us - same things covered but costs more and with a higher deductable/max OOP. Worst case, $750/month and I can pull them all into my plan through my company. That's 1/3 my income, give or take. I wonder if any first world countries need embedded programmers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 21:50
|
|