Transition planners have realized that they can take Obamacare subsidies from 20 million Americans by merely not renewing 2022 legislation. They find that prospect to be very exciting – orgasmic really.
free link:
intercst
5 Likes
The ACA also caps insurance company profits. That bit would probably draw “deregulation” scrutiny as well. Humana has taken quite a drubbing lately, something about bad reviews by MA customers. Humana is suing, claiming the review process is flawed. Maybe “big gummit” would decide to not contest the issue, and bump Humana’s ratings back up to where they were previously? United Health seems plenty robust, but I’m confident management would take more profit if they could.
Steve
2 Likes
Yes! CMS (Medicare) actually tracks how long people have to wait on the phone to talk to their Medicare Advantage insurer. For-profit insurers typically use long wait times as a tactic to frustrate and delay their customers access to health care and increase profits.
That dropped many Humana plans to a 3*** rating and cost them tens of millions of dollars in bonus payments.
I suspect that kind of performance-based scrutiny would end with the new Administration.
intercst
4 Likes
Take away enhanced subsidies. Doesn’t take away most of the subsidy, except for higher income folks who hit the subsidy cliff.
Exactly! The higher income folks are the ones who’ll complain the most.
But the enhanced subsides aren’t a trivial amount. It’s $30 billion year – about the cost to date of funding the genocide in Gaza.
Also, 20% of the Obamacare subsidy is skimmed off to the insurer. They’ll be screaming, too. {{ LOL }}
Maybe they’ll find a way to let the insurers keep the 20% skim, and just not offer any health care – that would save 80% of it.
intercst
2 Likes
Last I saw the population growth rate in Gaza is 3%.
That does not appear to be correct.
KFF says otherwise:
Low-income enrollees would experience the steepest percent increase in their annual premium payments if enhanced subsidies were unavailable. A 45-year old enrollee making $25,000 (166% of poverty) would see their annual premium payments grow by an average of 573%, or $917, for a benchmark silver plan (an increase from $160 for the annual premium payment with enhanced subsidies to $1,077 without enhanced subsidies). Prior to the enhanced subsidies, enrollees making above 400% of poverty were ineligible for premium assistance. Without enhanced subsidies, a 45-year old individual making $65,000 (432% of poverty) would experience a premium increase of $941 annually from $5,525 to $6,466 (the full cost of the benchmark silver premium).
See Figure 5. Both the percentage and the total dollar amount increase would be worse for those at lower income.
1 Like
“Setting it up to fail” 101: make the mob hate the plan, then the plan is easier to kill.
Google AI provided answer to my question about percentage of people on employer plans, vs on ACA plans:
The percentage of people on ACA plans is lower than the percentage of people on employer health insurance:
** ACA plans*
In 2023, about 14.2% of US residents had enrolled in an ACA Marketplace plan at some point. In non-expansion states, the average is 20%, while in expansion states it’s 12%.
** Employer health insurance*
In March 2023, 60.4% of non-elderly people had employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI). Of those, 84.2% had ESI from their own job.
Other health insurance coverage options include: Military (1.3%), Non-group (6.3%), Uninsured (8.0%), Medicare (14.6%), and Medicaid (21.2%).
So, a minority of people will be directly impacted by changes/repeal of the ACA.
Steve…this AI thing does seem to be useful, at times
1 Like
Prior to the ACA, people would just go uninsured, and then go to the Emergency Room when care was needed. While cheaper for them, I think the Hospitals were reimbursed by the US Taxpayers for this care ( not sure directly, or indirectly via their “non-profit” status ).
So my guess is that the working class folks ( not all, of course ) are chomping at the bit to have ACA eliminated, no more monthly premium for them.
1 Like
iirc, the personal mandate was repealed some years ago, so people are now free to roll the dice that nothing bad will happen to them. Now, it is probably the insurance companies that want the ACA repealed, because the young and healthy are no longer required to sign up and send money to them, with minimal to zero claim expense. I expect the percentage of people on ACA, who have health issues has significantly increased in recent years.
As the numbers show, less than 15% of people are on ACA coverage now. That makes them vulnerable to being cut loose.
Steve
“the personal mandate was repealed some years ago, so people are now free to roll the dice that nothing bad will happen to them.”
Forgot about that.
I covered that point specifically when it happened. They do NOT “have to buy insurance”–they then AGREE to bear the cost of the expenses incurred by themselves (i.e. NO INSURANCE). If nothing happens, they won a small prize–their savings of the insurance premiums. HOWEVER, if they INCURRED MAJOR MEDICAL EXPENSES, they pay it all. No insurance payments all. They are going to use GoFundMe (etc) and try to hit the payoff jackpot (as “Got-No-Memory Pizza” did). Bunch of rubes.
Not quite. The hospital would still send you a bill. If you couldn’t pay it would go out to collections and screw your credit. Hospitals are reimbursed for some of that uncompensated care, but they have to eat a lot of it.
In Utah, there was a big citizen’s ballot initiative to accept the ACA Medicaid expansion–which was lead by the health care providers. Their argument they are going to see the patients either way, so it makes vastly more sense on every level to see them in a normal clinical setting instead of an expensive ER.
The measure passed, but the Republican legislature was so horrified that Utah citizens would have access to health care, that they stripped most of the provisions out later. Keeping poor people in the ER where they belong makes it more convenient for rich people to get MRI appointments, after all.
Normally, the Medicaid expansion would be 90% paid for by federal dollars. But as an added bonus, the Utah expansion is too limited qualify for federal funding so it is all borne by Utah taxpayers.
They really dodged a bullet on that one.
7 Likes