RAND: Most People Will Pay More for Health Care under the ACA
Consumers who become newly insured on the individual market and make too much money to qualify for the ACA’s subsidies are expected to pay more ($7,202) in 2016 compared to if the law wasn’t in place ($5,368), according to the report…
Consumers with incomes below 138% of poverty will spend a total of $2,005 in 2016, an increase of $559. Those making between 138% and 400% of poverty will spend $3,536, an increase of $1,567.
I guess I missed when the definition of ‘affordable’ changed in meaning.
Never heard of doublespeak? In this case “affordable” simply means “unaffordable but subsidized.”
I still don’t see health care costs going down,
either. This is going to break the country, so much for supporting the middle class Mr. Obama.
Wow, who is still supporting this?
Right, this really puts the shutdown in perspective.
Does it? Because I’m a bit confused.
Last time a bad proposal came across my desk, I tossed it in the trash and kept on going with my daily activities. How many months have been spent, wasting tax dollars,over this illogical plan?
Now jobs are being lost…
^ now that is perspective I like.
not the lost jobs… Mikey’s perspective.
This is just ludicrous. I have never really contemplated going into the political arena until recently. I am a business man by nature, but these bozos in D.C. are driving me crazy.
Enough with the ego battles and publicity contest…
Medpage Today–
“Low-income uninsured people who are living in states that don’t expand their Medicaid programs — Texas and Florida, for example — and who are ineligible for federal assistance will spend an average of $1,831 out-of-pocket, compared to $28 if they were covered by Medicaid.”
“Consumers who become newly insured on the individual market and make too much money to qualify for the ACA’s subsidies are expected to pay more ($7,202) in 2016 compared to if the law wasn’t in place ($5,368), according to the report.”
Everyone loses.
No big surprise.
This really should have been two posts.
The extra spending by those who make too much to qualify for subsidies is undeniable.
The effects on poorer people are very jumbled, and the headline of this post is misleading for them.
In specific:
a. Low income people who live in states that do not expand will spend more than if they had gotten onto Medicaid.
That is not the fault of the law as passed!! It is the fault of the Supreme Court decisions and state actions.
b. Out of pocket costs are an average. Some people will have no out of pocket costs.
c. A person who had no insurance before the ACA might now get insurance. In almost all cases he or she will be paying something.
Is that a bad thing?
There is some careless jumbling in this post, in my opinion.
Well stated!