6 ms·

You don’t lose your insurance anymore if you lose your job. You are required by law to have insurance whether you have a job or not.

projektir 9y ago
Your formulation makes it sound like the government will make sure you have insurance. This is not the case. You have to make sure you have insurance or the government will fine you. But if you were unable to get insurance for whatever reason, you still don't have insurance. And Obamacare premiums are not small and the insurance is not very good.
- throwaway84742 9y ago
  Yes. So rather than putting a gun to my head to make me pay for your insurance they put the gun to the head of the purportedly responsible adult who should be paying, and provide steep discounts if you can’t afford it. Government can merely redistribute its tax earnings, often in extremely corrupt and wasteful ways. It does not create wealth on its own.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  To follow up on this, you will be fined by the IRS for every month of the year in which you have no insurance...
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Not anymore though, the 2017 tax bill repealed that part of the law.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  What's your criteria for "good"? The worst conforming ACA plans are essentially the catastrophic insurance that people think they are clamoring for; they are expensive because health care costs in the US are spiraling out of control. It could be that people actually want plans with a bunch of complicated limitations and limits, but I doubt it.
  - _dps 9y ago
    > The worst conforming ACA plans are essentially the catastrophic insurance that people think they are clamoring for Just an anecdote, but I have not found this to be the case at all, and I'd figure I'd offer an example of one such "clamorer who thinks he wants catastrophic plans" to balance the discussion. Prior to ACA I was on a "catastrophic" plan (despite being able to afford something much more comprehensive). I think the "catastrophic" term is kind of dumb, and I'd instead call it "actually-insurance, not a prepaid health subscription". The premium was around $95/month and I spent maybe another ~$1k/year on medications and office visits. I was totally satisfied with this health coverage and never felt I had to limit my access to health care because of my plan. As soon as ACA rolled around I tried to find the most similar plan I could (mine was discontinued despite promises to the contrary). 1) I couldn't get as high a deductible, so I was forced to pay for risk-reduction I didn't want. In an absolutely life-threatening 1%-of-insurees catastrophe, my family can absorb say $25k/year out of pocket so I see no reason to insure against that financial risk. 2) The first year my premium was $180, then $220, then $260. I did not save any money on medications or office visits (if anything it got more expensive, but that may also just be a general trend in US health costs). So post-ACA my insurance premium cost has nearly tripled, and the product I considered satisfactory before is simply not available on the market. In summary: people can rationally prefer pre-ACA catastrophic plans, and post-ACA such options are not available.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      I think that's a fair counterpoint. It would be interesting to see some statistics about how many people are informed about the trade offs between deductibles and premiums and such.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  My experience with a silver level ppo plan through the exchanges is that it is exceptionally good. But yes, I'm sure if you choose the absolute bare minimum coverages it won't be great.

projektir 9y ago

Your formulation makes it sound like the government will make sure you have insurance. This is not the case. You have to make sure you have insurance or the government will fine you. But if you were unable to get insurance for whatever reason, you still don't have insurance. And Obamacare premiums are not small and the insurance is not very good.

throwaway84742 9y ago
Yes. So rather than putting a gun to my head to make me pay for your insurance they put the gun to the head of the purportedly responsible adult who should be paying, and provide steep discounts if you can’t afford it. Government can merely redistribute its tax earnings, often in extremely corrupt and wasteful ways. It does not create wealth on its own.
Cyph0n 9y ago
To follow up on this, you will be fined by the IRS for every month of the year in which you have no insurance...
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Not anymore though, the 2017 tax bill repealed that part of the law.
maxerickson 9y ago
What's your criteria for "good"? The worst conforming ACA plans are essentially the catastrophic insurance that people think they are clamoring for; they are expensive because health care costs in the US are spiraling out of control. It could be that people actually want plans with a bunch of complicated limitations and limits, but I doubt it.
- _dps 9y ago
  > The worst conforming ACA plans are essentially the catastrophic insurance that people think they are clamoring for Just an anecdote, but I have not found this to be the case at all, and I'd figure I'd offer an example of one such "clamorer who thinks he wants catastrophic plans" to balance the discussion. Prior to ACA I was on a "catastrophic" plan (despite being able to afford something much more comprehensive). I think the "catastrophic" term is kind of dumb, and I'd instead call it "actually-insurance, not a prepaid health subscription". The premium was around $95/month and I spent maybe another ~$1k/year on medications and office visits. I was totally satisfied with this health coverage and never felt I had to limit my access to health care because of my plan. As soon as ACA rolled around I tried to find the most similar plan I could (mine was discontinued despite promises to the contrary). 1) I couldn't get as high a deductible, so I was forced to pay for risk-reduction I didn't want. In an absolutely life-threatening 1%-of-insurees catastrophe, my family can absorb say $25k/year out of pocket so I see no reason to insure against that financial risk. 2) The first year my premium was $180, then $220, then $260. I did not save any money on medications or office visits (if anything it got more expensive, but that may also just be a general trend in US health costs). So post-ACA my insurance premium cost has nearly tripled, and the product I considered satisfactory before is simply not available on the market. In summary: people can rationally prefer pre-ACA catastrophic plans, and post-ACA such options are not available.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    I think that's a fair counterpoint. It would be interesting to see some statistics about how many people are informed about the trade offs between deductibles and premiums and such.
jjeaff 9y ago
My experience with a silver level ppo plan through the exchanges is that it is exceptionally good. But yes, I'm sure if you choose the absolute bare minimum coverages it won't be great.