Once again, it's everyman (or woman) for themselves. People think what benefits them the most.
So you have a per-exisiting condition, and it HELPS YOU PLUS you probably may or may not get a subsidy.
Now, bounce the ball on the side. If you don't have a pre exisiting condition, and don't get a subsidy and next year's rate will triple (3X). Yes, like I said the average rate for a 26 year old male with no subsidy will triple next year.
How would you feel about it?
How about we split it it. Let those who have pre exisiting pay the same rate as someone their age group without a pre existing condition. Alright than. But what if the government eventually runs out of money to subsidy everyone they were supposed to. Would people be happy than?
You see there is no correct answer. It's going to be much more expensive for those making 90K with a family of 4"just because they can afford it more?" even though they will end up paying $8-10K more. That's a lot of money just in premiums and still end up paying a $6000 high deductible. But the same family making 88K will get a subsidy and pay less. So if someone making 2K more in adjusted gross income. They will end up paying $8000-10000 more in health premiums.
Do the math: MAGI 400% of poverty (9.5% limit to health premiums). Vermont releases their rates this past week:
Average family of 4 premiums will be around $1500/month with a $6250 deductible
$1500 X12 months equals $18K a year
Now let's get to the subsidies:
If you make less than 400% of poverty (around $88K for a family of 4) you won't pay more than 9.5% in premiums of your adjusted income. So you won't be responsible for more than about $8000 in premiums. The government will "subsidized you about $10K in premiums).
Now if you made 401% of poverty. Guess what? You end up paying the full $18K in health premiums.
So you work an extra few hours a week. Your reward from the ACA? You pay $10K more.
How can supporters of the ACA say it's fair if someone making a few more dollars eventually ends up paying much more than the next guy.
I thought this was supposed to be "affordable". Doesn't seem like.
"But but but.....they will say: "you can just pay a "tax" and not carry insurance or but but but most people have employer coverage"
"But but but that situation doesn't affect many people and they can afford it" Keep the excuses coming. I can hear almost every defense from the ACA supporters.
Same excuses used against you (the one with the pre existing condition). Opponents against the ACA say
"but but young people with pre existing conditions don't make up that much of the population"
You see my point. Just because it's helps you and others. It also hurts many others especially job creators like small business whose owners generally net between 90-200K in income. They aren't multi-millionaires. They aren't the 1%. They could live modestly trying to save but will get crushed having to pay upwards to $10K in health premiums.
Anyone have any responses? Always see both sides. That's the way I examine things. Yes it sucks to have a pre existing condition. The ACA is the right step in that direction. But it does a whole lot of things wrong by making costs much higher for many in the population at the same time.
And never assume the subsidy will be around. Because the system will be swallowed soon by too many people wanting the subsidy and not enough tax revenue being collected. What happens if they give you too much subsidy? Do you need to get it back? Again, government non sense. The government says even if they over subsidized you, you won't have to give back some or most of the subsidy. It's unbelievable accounting. Like saying I give you $8000 in subsidy. But find out you make too much. Now I don't really want that $8000 back to fund the system. The government may end up only asking for $4000 back.
Isn't that a nice way to fund this system?
CBO: PPACA tax credit could be big | Health Insurance Brokers