What the health care ruling means to you
What the health care ruling means to you
- NEW: The American Cancer Society is "concerned" about the court's Medicaid ruling
- The requirement to have health insurance by 2014 remains in place
- Insurance companies must cover people with pre-existing conditions
- Small business owners and medical groups disagree over the impacts of the law
(CNN) -- The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act means that the predictions about how it will affect Americans remain in place.
The court did rule that a part of the law involving Medicaid must change. The law calls for an expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, which involves spending by the federal government and the states. The law threatens to remove existing Medicaid funding from states that don't participate in the expansion. The high court said the government must remove that threat.
Several groups that follow the health care law closely said they were keeping an eye on the potential impact of the Medicaid ruling.
Here are some highlights:
The uninsured
The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty -- although many are exempt from that provision.
In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
Ruling on individual mandate explained
Health care exchanges, which are designed to offer cheaper health care plans, remain in place as well.
American Cancer Society CEO John Seffrin said his organization was looking at the ruling on Medicaid, and is "concerned that the decision may limit the expansion of quality coverage to some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens."
Medicaid Health Plans of America, the trade group representing Medicaid health plans, praised the court "for keeping in place key elements of this historic legislation" and said it remains "committed to a strong partnership with the states and CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) to find a way to cover this population in need."
The insured
Because the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place.
Young adults
Millions of young adults up to age 26 who have gained health insurance due to the law will be able to keep it. The law requires insurers to cover the children of those they insure up to age 26. About 2.5 million young adults from age 19 to 25 obtained health coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Two of the nation's largest insurers, United Healthcare and Humana, recently announced they would voluntarily maintain some aspects of health care reform, including coverage of adult dependents up to age 26, even if the law was scrapped.
People with pre-existing conditions
Since the law remains in place, the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing medical conditions remains active.
The law also established that children under the age of 19 could no longer have limited benefits or be denied benefits because they had a pre-existing condition.
Starting in 2014, the law makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on coverage.
It also established national high-risk pools that people with such conditions could join sooner to get health insurance. As of April, a total of only about 67,000 people were enrolled in federally-funded pools established by the health care law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
More than 13 million American non-elderly adults have been denied insurance specifically because of their medical conditions, according to the Commonwealth Fund. The Kaiser Family Foundation says 21% of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, are charged a higher price, or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition.
All taxpayers
No matter what the Supreme Court had decided, it would have been a mixed bag for all Americans when it comes to federal spending. There is heated dispute over what impact the health care law will have on the country over the long term.
The federal government is set to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to subsidize coverage and expand eligibility for Medicaid. It is not immediately clear how the high court's ruling on the part of the law dealing with the expansion of Medicaid eligibility could affect spending.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law could reduce deficits modestly in the first 10 years and then much more significantly in the second decade.
The CBO said a repeal of the mandate could reduce deficits by $282 billion over 10 years, because the government would be subsidizing insurance for fewer people. But the nation faces costs in various ways for having people who are uninsured. The Urban Institute's Health Policy Center estimated that without a mandate, 40 million Americans would remain uninsured.
Meanwhile, the Flexible Spending Accounts that millions of Americans use to save money tax-free for medical expenses will be sliced under the law. FSAs often allow people to put aside up to $5,000 pre-tax; as of 2013, they were to face an annual limit of $2,500.
Small business owners
The rules and benefits small business owners face as a result of the health care law remain in place.
As CNN has chronicled, the law brought a mix of both. The director of the National Federation of Independent Business is one of the plaintiffs who pushed the court to strike down the law. Meanwhile, a group called Small Business Majority fought to protect the law, saying its loss could be a nightmare.
As of 2014, under the law, small firms with more than 50 full-time employees would have to provide coverage or face expensive fines.
All Americans, in lesser known ways
The massive health care law requires doctors to report goodies they get from medical supply companies; demands more breastfeeding rooms; requires all chain restaurants to list calories under every menu item, and includes numerous other provisions, which now remain in place.
Doctors and other health care providers
Health care providers have already begun making changes based on the 2010 law, and in preparation for what will go into effect in 2014. Those plans continue.
In the short term, doctors avoid "chaos" that may have resulted from the law suddenly being dropped or changed, according to Bob Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs at the American College of Physicians, who wrote a blog post on the website kevinmd.com this spring.
Medical groups have disagreed over the law.
How the Supreme Court Justices voted
Opinion: A health care victory that's only a start
Ruling plays into campaign narrative for both sides
National Woman's Party
If its anything like our tax system...most business's run a tax debt if they incur fines or penalties in relation to taxes, it is just added to their debt, interest is charged and they can either enter into payment plans or fold. Some fold, file for bankruptcy and then reopen under another name...debt taken care of.
As usual the wealthy get away with everything....same shit different country LOL
Quoting Lizardannie1966:We currently have private insurance. That $800 tab was through Dh's employment plan. We declined it as did every other employee.
Supposedly when the corporate office of his company movies from California to Texas, there will be new coverage offered.
We'll see.
My husband was told....and this is mere speculation, I think (anyone correct me, please)...that with "Obamacare," the amount paid on any "tax" for not having coverage will come out of individual tax refunds? IF this is the case, what about those who end up paying at the end of the year versus a refund?
I really need to take the time to research all of this more thoroughly.
Quoting turtle68:DAMN!! $800 and not even the whole family...wowser that is a lot of money per month dedicated to healthcare....even at 100k wage that is approximately a years medicare levy here for a family of 8.
Our medicare levy is not taken out of weekly taxes...its calculated at tax time and deducted from the taxes you paid over the year...then you are either given a refund or a bill LOL. I have not known anyone outside of the business arena to have a debt...everyone gets a refund.
Quoting Lizardannie1966:Depends on what type of insurance. At THIS time, for just my husband and myself, insurance would have cost nearly $800 a month. This does not include our two younger children and yes, it would go up.
I'm not sure if any of this will be income-based. I think it should be and even then, consideration should be given to what their household income goes to. Rent? Mortgage? Utilities? Credit cards? Food? Pet care? Gas? Car maintenance? Other?
That (using your example) $40,000 a year can get spread thin very quickly. Add to this a "do or pay" fine.
It could add up for a family.
Quoting turtle68:2.5% of income in a 40K household is only 1000 dollars...is insurance for a family going to be less than that a year??
Is the high cap for high income...or any income going to be 2000 bucks? If I earn one million and dont buy ANY insurance I will get fined 2000?
Quoting Lizardannie1966:Right here is what I take issue with and what has sealed the decision of *who* will receive my vote for president.
Quoting NWP:The uninsured
The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty -- although many are exempt from that provision.
In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
And just where do you think the funds for these subsidies will come from?
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
Have you looked at the income requirements for subsidies? They are pretty high. Right now it looks like if you make just a little too much for Medicaid you can still get your premium subsidized.
Quoting TruthSeeker.:
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
Quoting Naturewoman4:
I'm still confused on all of this. Seems, I hear one thing, than I hear another. If anyone knows could you help me understand this. Does it mean that ppl don't HAVE TO BUY Insurance? So, then HOW does this help MOST Americans? IF more & more Americans do without Ins. now, what then? Because, with the HIGH cost of Healthcare Ins., seems to me ALOT WOULD DO WITHOUT. A poster mentions her family of 3 would have to pay 679/mo. for the bare min. HOW does MOST families afford that?
The eligibility for Medicaid will be expanded. Also, the subsidies for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid seem fairly generous. So, if you truly can't afford it, you can go on Medicaid.
What about people that make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to be able to pay for their own health insurance? From what I gather they are up the creek and expected to pay 2k per year for a family of 4 by 2016. What about those people? How does this law help them?
Quoting Carpy:And just where do you think the funds for these subsidies will come from?
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
Have you looked at the income requirements for subsidies? They are pretty high. Right now it looks like if you make just a little too much for Medicaid you can still get your premium subsidized.
Quoting TruthSeeker.:
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
Quoting Naturewoman4:
I'm still confused on all of this. Seems, I hear one thing, than I hear another. If anyone knows could you help me understand this. Does it mean that ppl don't HAVE TO BUY Insurance? So, then HOW does this help MOST Americans? IF more & more Americans do without Ins. now, what then? Because, with the HIGH cost of Healthcare Ins., seems to me ALOT WOULD DO WITHOUT. A poster mentions her family of 3 would have to pay 679/mo. for the bare min. HOW does MOST families afford that?
The eligibility for Medicaid will be expanded. Also, the subsidies for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid seem fairly generous. So, if you truly can't afford it, you can go on Medicaid.
What about people that make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to be able to pay for their own health insurance? From what I gather they are up the creek and expected to pay 2k per year for a family of 4 by 2016. What about those people? How does this law help them?
Quoting Naturewoman4:
I'm still confused on all of this. Seems, I hear one thing, than I hear another. If anyone knows could you help me understand this. Does it mean that ppl don't HAVE TO BUY Insurance?
Yes. And if you don't buy, you pay a tax. That helps offset the cost of treating the uninsured, because whether you have insurance or not, if you go to the hospital , you're gonna get treated. The idea is to eliminate the free ride for those who don't pay for insurance.
So, then HOW does this help MOST Americans? IF more & more Americans do without Ins. now, what then?
One of the reasons it's so expensive is actually those people who do without it... and then get sick.
Because, with the HIGH cost of Healthcare Ins., seems to me ALOT WOULD DO WITHOUT.
One reason a lot do without is that employer plans have become ridiculously expensive. I know one company that has employees paying $800/mo for an HMO that covers the worker and his/her family (spouse and kids). CRAZY. And that's the system people are supposed to LIKE?
Part of the bill calls for insurance exchanges... opportunities for people to buy insurance at a lower cost than through indvidual plans. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a lot of people who alreayd have insurance find that more attractive, if the exchanges can provide similar coverage at a lower cost.
A poster mentions her family of 3 would have to pay 679/mo. for the bare min. HOW does MOST families afford that?
See what I noted above... $679 is pretty damned cheap in comparison. I don't know if the premiums stay on pre-tax or not... maybe someone can fill in that blank. If it's not, the premiums can be deductible from taxes.
If you're insured, nothing changes except there are no more lifetime caps on treatment and you can't be left hanging for a pre-existing condition.
Here's the quiz folks were talking about earlier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/
We are insured through my employer and nothing changes for us.
Quoting danni1982:we pay 145 a month for medical, dental and vision through my husbands job. The place he works covers 300 of the insurance cost. So we would be safe in 2014 right? and we wouldnt have to pay the tax or change our plan right?
Well if that's the case, then I don't see anything wrong with taxing those that don't have Ins. to offset the cost of treating the uninsured. The whole thing sounds so Political to me. What I heard though is that there's going to be a Tax on everyone. Several taxes that are going to go through, to help offset the cost of covering those that are uninsured. I also heard, that with the upholding of Obamacare, (except the mandate to make ppl get Ins.), the there will be MORE ppl that will be able to get on Medicaid. How in the world are we going to pay for MORE ppl on Medicaid, when the Entitlement Programs are going broke?
Quoting gdiamante:
Quoting Naturewoman4:
I'm still confused on all of this. Seems, I hear one thing, than I hear another. If anyone knows could you help me understand this. Does it mean that ppl don't HAVE TO BUY Insurance?Yes. And if you don't buy, you pay a tax. That helps offset the cost of treating the uninsured, because whether you have insurance or not, if you go to the hospital , you're gonna get treated. The idea is to eliminate the free ride for those who don't pay for insurance.So, then HOW does this help MOST Americans? IF more & more Americans do without Ins. now, what then?One of the reasons it's so expensive is actually those people who do without it... and then get sick.Because, with the HIGH cost of Healthcare Ins., seems to me ALOT WOULD DO WITHOUT.One reason a lot do without is that employer plans have become ridiculously expensive. I know one company that has employees paying $800/mo for an HMO that covers the worker and his/her family (spouse and kids). CRAZY. And that's the system people are supposed to LIKE?Part of the bill calls for insurance exchanges... opportunities for people to buy insurance at a lower cost than through indvidual plans. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a lot of people who alreayd have insurance find that more attractive, if the exchanges can provide similar coverage at a lower cost.A poster mentions her family of 3 would have to pay 679/mo. for the bare min. HOW does MOST families afford that?See what I noted above... $679 is pretty damned cheap in comparison. I don't know if the premiums stay on pre-tax or not... maybe someone can fill in that blank. If it's not, the premiums can be deductible from taxes.
And who do you really think will foot the bill? And ultimately who will end up bearing the brunt of it?
The tax is expected to cost device manufacturers $20 billion annually unless Congress can overturn that portion of the law.
“Unless repealed, a $20 billion tax on medical devices could result in the loss of up to 43,000 American jobs,” said Advanced Medical Technology Association President and CEO Stephen Ubl. “We have consistently opposed the medical device tax because of its damaging effects on economic competitiveness, jobs and research and development.”
The House has voted to repeal the tax, but Senate repeal is considered unlikely.
Manufacturers and the business community consider the medical device tax just one of the potential problems of the health-care reform law -- the most extensive piece of health care legislation since Medicare.
Starting in 2014, the sweeping reform package mandates that all companies with 50 or more employees offer a certain level of health insurance or face fines of as much as $2,000 per employee. It also adds a new tax on investment income to manufacturers incorporated as subchapter S corporations.
In addition, starting in 2018, it places a 40 percent excise tax on benefit-rich “Cadillac” plans -- that is, employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage, $11,850 for retirees, $27,500 for family coverage and $30,950 for high-risk professionals.
Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. President and CEO Bill Carteaux has said previously that the new taxes and fees will inhibit the ability of U.S. companies to compete in the global marketplace and that the law does not address the issues that have resulted in the healthcare cost crisis -- such as lack of competition in many insurance markets, runaway litigation, or the inability of businesses to pool risk across state lines.
He is also concerned that states will pass on the costs from their expanded Medicaid responsibilities to the business community.
http://plasticsnews.com/headlines2.html?id=25831&channel=408
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
The increased taxes on medical devices and investment income.
Quoting Carpy:And just where do you think the funds for these subsidies will come from?
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
Have you looked at the income requirements for subsidies? They are pretty high. Right now it looks like if you make just a little too much for Medicaid you can still get your premium subsidized.
Quoting TruthSeeker.:
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
Quoting Naturewoman4:
I'm still confused on all of this. Seems, I hear one thing, than I hear another. If anyone knows could you help me understand this. Does it mean that ppl don't HAVE TO BUY Insurance? So, then HOW does this help MOST Americans? IF more & more Americans do without Ins. now, what then? Because, with the HIGH cost of Healthcare Ins., seems to me ALOT WOULD DO WITHOUT. A poster mentions her family of 3 would have to pay 679/mo. for the bare min. HOW does MOST families afford that?
The eligibility for Medicaid will be expanded. Also, the subsidies for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid seem fairly generous. So, if you truly can't afford it, you can go on Medicaid.
What about people that make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to be able to pay for their own health insurance? From what I gather they are up the creek and expected to pay 2k per year for a family of 4 by 2016. What about those people? How does this law help them?
Who would you save?
- NWP
on Jun. 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM