{{ Because many plans under the Affordable Care Act already carry a high deductible, people may not be able to find cheaper policies to significantly reduce costs.
Nearly a third of the 24 million people who signed up for coverage under the A.C.A. last year enrolled in the least expensive kind of plan available to everyone, a so-called Bronze plan. }}
You really shouldn’t be buying a Silver or Gold Plan unless you’re in the Top 15% of the individual health care expenditures distribution. So about 50% of Obamacare customers are buying the wrong plan and paying too much in premiums.
When I was on Obamacare, I bought a Silver Plan one year when I was able to keep my income low enough for a reduced annual out-of -pocket limit of $3,000/yr. I then scheduled an elective surgical procedure that cost about $10,000. I went back to the Bronze Plan the following year.
from the article
{{ “People look at $10,600 and panic,” said Jennifer Chumbley Hogue, an insurance broker in Texas who sells A.C.A. plans. “There’s a big difference to the consumer between $9,000 and $10,000.” }}
Absolutely! I cancelled my health insurance the year before Obamacare started once my Premium for a high deductible plan with a $3,000 annual deductible for Medical and $5,000 for Drugs went over $10,000/year. I had better coverage under Obamacare with a Bronze Plan for $1.42/month – less than $20/year.
Your conclusion does not account for the fact that Silver plans have (had?) the additional cost-sharing reductions not available for Bronze plans so depending on one’s income (something you left out of your analysis), a person might be better off (e.g. better coverage for the price) with silver because their income is low enough…
As you specifically illustrated in your own situation.
Absolutely! As I indicated in my post, I took advantage of the Silver Plan “additional cost sharing deduction” for one year when I was able to keep my income below the limit to qualify, and then scheduled a $10,000 elective surgery.
My point is that most people know if they have an expensive chronic condition or are very healthy and don’t need to see a doctor. Of course, we’re all subject to the one-off leg amputation or other calamity, but for most that only happens once every 10 or 20 years. You’re better off playing the odds and buying the Bronze Plan with the assurance that your annual in-network medical cost will be capped at $10,600 for individuals, $21,200 for families in 2026.
No, But your annual out-of-pocket maximum for say the one-off, right leg amputation is $10,600 for individuals, $21,200 for families. If you’ve been in a Bronze Plane for 5 years or more, your HSA account balance will likely cover the out-of-pocket maximum.
The congress is not dysfunctional if you consider their actual incentives are to stay employed and curry favor with the very wealthy and connected. Never actually solving anything while delivering tax breaks to the rich guarantees their re-election and keeps issues like immigration reform as an issue to run on, among others. We need a constitutional convention and a complete revamping of our system of government. May never happen without an actual armed rebellion, which I don’t see happening anytime soon .
This is the one thing we do NOT need. The right has been licking their chops at trying to get a constitutional convention! We do need some changes; but I don’t see how they get made any time soon.
The Congress is not dysfunctional, in that it is accurately reflecting the wishes of the voters. For each party, many (most) voters firmly believe that their political positions are right, and those of the other party are terrible. They therefore do not want their Congressbeings to ever compromise with the other party. To the extent that compromise would be necessary to adopt legislation, their preferred outcome is that no legislation be adopted. So nothing outside of reconciliation and a handful of one-sided issue bills get passed. They want their officials to wait and hold the status quo until the time (surely the next election!) when their party wins enough seats to force the right policy choice.
Because the Executive is the only branch where power wholly moves from one party to another in an election, both parties orient towards trying to achieve their goals primarily (even solely) through the Executive. The voters want that to happen, so Congress being supine in the face of this is not a sign of dysfunction - it’s the system working. Congress is doing what their voters want.
In the old days, when party leaders were more in charge of who got elected within the party and who didn’t, there was a mechanism by which the parties could force some factions to take a loss or give something up in order to achieve another legislative goal. That’s the one thing that’s changed. So except in very rare circumstances (like Trump’s insanely high popularity within the GOP base), there’s no one to mediate intra-party factional disputes over interests any more and force one part of the base to take a loss in order to achieve some other goal.
Wait a second. There are several kitchen table issues where the public opinion polls show heavy majorities that do not align with the party line, especially among independents.
Sure - but that doesn’t mean that large majorities of the Democratic party want the Democrats to sign on to a bill that advances policies that Republicans favor, or vice versa, even if the public generally supports a policy that’s contrary to the Democratic party line (or vice versa). Nor do they want their electeds to sign on to any specific bill that takes an approach to those 80-20 issues that’s more in line with the other party’s approach to the 80-20 issue than their own party’s approach. A lot of Republicans might want ACA subsidies extended, and a lot of Democrats might want increased border security - but most Republicans don’t want the Democrats to get a lot of input into what an ACA subsidy extension bill looks like, and most Democrats don’t want Republicans to get to shape what a border security bill looks like, except in the most dire political circumstances.
Congresscritters who try to find a mutually acceptable set of concessions don’t fare well among their constituents. They have “failed to meet the moment.” They have betrayed their party by working with the other side. There is a reward for the Arlen Specters and Joe Manchins of the world, and it isn’t praise for helping break a logjam. A majority of voters within each party don’t want their Congressbeings to give concessions to the other side, even to gain movement on 80-20 issues. They’d rather wait until they can pick up the pen and write their own version of the bill to solve that 80-20 issue.
“New survey results showed party authorship of legislation means a great deal to Republican and Democrat voters.
“That’s the takeaway from a new Politico polling experiment that tested whether Americans react more to the substance of policies or to which party claims credit for them.
The answer, according to the survey, is overwhelmingly the latter — a finding that underscores how deeply partisan cues shape voter behavior and presents an opportunity and a risk for President Donald Trump heading into the midterms.”
Yes. Business as usual in support of corporate interests and the wealthy.
Politicians make promises they do not intend to keep and toss the working class & middle class under the bus. And throw out a bit of red meat for some portion of the voters-DOGE-ICE enforcement-tariffs to Make America Great Again; yet serves to rend the fabric of America asunder.
USians voters rejected establishment politicians in 2016 & the recent election for mayor of New York. A form of electoral revolt. I expect more in the future. Helter Skelter appears to be our future.
This has been well-documented for years now. A prime example is when the word Obamacare is used to describe the Affordable Care Act and vice-versa. The Republican voters’ reactions of overall approval or disapproval of it depend on the naming.
All of the concern over the removal of enhanced subsidies for the ACA affects about 7% of ACA enrollees, based on 2024 numbers. There are 24 million enrolled and 1.7 million are over the originally established cliff of 400% of fpl. Nowhere near as big as the media says, as usual.
To be clear, I am definitely in favor of some type of Medicare for all solution with the needed increase in taxes. My personal belief is this country can certainly afford this option, and many benefits will accrue to the entire population if this option were adopted.
Congress could pass a basic bill to phase out the subsidies as income increases as well, but they appear to prefer intransigence and conflict without resolution.
“This plot shows the ACA premium as a percentage of your income for 2025 and projected for 2026.
X axis is the income as a percentage of FPL.
Premiums will be higher for ALL incomes.”
