Just ameliorated for a time by all the executive actions. It really does seem dems will lose lots of supporters, one vote at a time. Not surprisingly, the article below demonstrates another hit to middle class earners:
“While the federal government was trumpeting the benefits of Obamacare to boost enrollment earlier this year, about 1,800 families in New Jersey were receiving letters telling them their children would be losing their health coverage last week.
The Affordable Care Act — the federal law that mandates everyone have insurance — effectively killed FamilyCare Advantage, a low-cost option for kids in New Jersey created six years ago for parents who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid and other subsidized programs but too little to buy on a policy on their own. The state program was the first of its kind in the nation.”
Michigan has had a program that does the exact same thing since 2014. It is called MI-Child. Basically for $10/month/kid you get total H/C. You only have to meet the income requirements (which go to 200% of the federal poverty line for the size of your family).
Interesting, the ACA has not cancelled out Michigan’s program. So, my guess is that there is more to your story than what you know.
I could be wrong but I think we are yet to see the real millstone. The ACA has effectively removed all barriers to rising costs. Life time limits, pre existing conditions, capped deductibles and ability to pay. On top of that it has added some expenses, children dental and few others. The end result is that the health insurance cost burden will be burgeoning and those paying for it, with subsidies now reaching well into the middle class, will be far fewer. Either via taxation or insurance premium costs those continue to pay sans subsidy will be paying significantly more, not your typical 8-10% annual income increase either, but significant 50-100% over the next 2-3 years.
By the time these costs hit this program will be so entrenched into the public’s mind as another service “Owed” to them that there will be no changing it.
I was thinking along those lines, that if the govt could produce a huge increase in healthcare insurance costs, then offer those subsidies to tens of millions of the middle class, they suddenly have a whole new army of folks ready to vote big govt nanny state (usually dem) to protect their financial interests. In short; make it unaffordable > offer subsidies > create more dependents > grow govt and enhance govt power.
The end result is that the health insurance cost burden will be burgeoning and those paying for it, with subsidies now reaching well into the middle class, will be far fewer.
Even in the most extreme case, where those paying for it had to pay almost 100% of their income, it might not make much difference politically if they constituted less than 50% of the voters.
Even in the most extreme case, where those paying for it had to pay almost 100% of their income, it might not make much difference politically if they constituted less than 50% of the voters.
No question and that’s where were headed. In my area you can get subsidize up to ~60K income, well over median income. IOW at this point there is a financial benefit to more then half of the people. My guess is that if the prices are pushed up another 25-30%+ that subsidy will have to be pushed ever higher up. 80-100K and that someone making median income might have a good portion of their health care paid for if they got it thru the exchanges.
There is nothing good in ACA. This is just more evidence of the farce that is obummercare. This is just the beginning of a horrible chapter of US history where we’re told that health care is a “right” and it is our “duty” to provide it for all. What a crock. How about actually channeling all this ingenuity into actually coming up with a solution to address the real problem, cost.
It’s not as if the people being insured under that program got left behind. Not sure what your problem is here. Why have 2 programs covering the same people?
It’s not as if the people being insured under that program got left behind. Not sure what your problem is here. Why have 2 programs covering the same people?
I’m not really concerned about this particular change as well. All of the states “High risk Pool” are essentially being shut down as well. Since these people can no longer be denied coverage and if they can’t afford the premiums they will be subsidized it really makes no sense to have multiple programs.
For many people this is just a move to a new program, not a creation of another. However it is my belief this “New program” is going to end up costing us considerably more, definitely in the short term.
Michigan has had a program that does the exact same thing since 2014. It is called MI-Child. Basically for $10/month/kid you get total H/C. You only have to meet the income requirements (which go to 200% of the federal poverty line for the size of your family).
Interesting, the ACA has not cancelled out Michigan’s program. So, my guess is that there is more to your story than what you know.
Bernie
Gov. Christie gave the insurance companies the choice of whether to continue this policy. They (it) chose not to. At least that is what is in the nj.com article in the OP.
Gov. Christie gave the insurance companies the choice of whether to continue this policy. They (it) chose not to. At least that is what is in the nj.com article in the OP.
Gov. Christie gave the insurance companies the choice of whether to continue this policy. They (it) chose not to. At least that is what is in the nj.com article in the OP.
Convenient to leave that part of the story out.
Bernie
Well it was a one year extension that Obama said insurance companies could offer, but with caveats, and it was not left out of the story:
“Gov. Chris Christie let the insurance companies decide, and they declined, saying the federal government still required no lifetime cap on benefits, which would make the policies much more expensive.
The same reckoning played out with the FamilyCare Advantage plan.
“The NJ FamilyCare Advantage plan does not meet all ACA requirements and would have had to be significantly changed. This would have increased considerably the premiums for the plan,” Horizon spokesman Tom Vincz said.”