Skip to main content

What the ACA Decision Really Means for You


Are you ecstatic, happy, neutral, sad, or devastated about the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding almost all of the Affordable Care Act?

The answer may depend on your politics, but it more likely has everything to do with what the ruling means for you and the people you care about.

Back in March, I wrote a column entitled “How We Really Hope the Supreme Court Will Rule on the Affordable Care Act.”  Now you’ve heard pundits, politicians, and public officials tell you how to feel, let’s recap where you might really stand on the decision.

Let’s start with your policy views.

If you favor a single payer, “Medicare-for-all” program:  You’re devastated.
Your only real hope for resurrecting “Medicare for all” was if the individual mandate was thrown out.  It wasn’t.  You may have Medicaid and Medicare expansions, but over the long haul that probably won’t be enough for you. 

If you want a market-driven insurance environment, where insurers compete for your business with a minimal number of mandates and requirements:  You’re also devastated.
Neither liberals nor conservatives truly won on this one.  Like Medicare-for-all advocates, you lost your political battle to reduce the role of government in healthcare, and it may be impossible to win in the future.  

If you want to reduce the size and scope of the state Medicaid programs: You’re unhappy.
Medicaid is getting bigger, but at least the state’s not footing the bill.  Your state can refuse to expand the program, but then it’ll give up all the new federal dollars, too – and may still have to provide an alternative for poorer people who can’t afford insurance.  Maybe the federal government will take over the program in its entirety some day, but don’t hold your breath.

If you want more universal coverage, but don’t care whether it’s private or public:  You’re happy.
It may not be perfect, but the combination of Medicaid expansions, new Medicare benefits paid for by Medicare tax increases for the wealthy, and subsidized private insurance for the middle class will lead to more coverage, and fewer uninsured.

Now let’s turn to your personal views.

If you are among the 206 million people who make less than 400% of poverty (currently $91,200 for a family of four):  You’re happy.
For those who don’t have access to group coverage, you’re about to get a valuable tax credit toward what you pay for insurance.  For example:  A 45 year old with a family of four making $60,000 per year will be eligible for a tax credit of over $9,000, reducing the cost of an average family plan to around $400 per month.

If you are among the estimated 4 million people who can afford insurance, but will choose not to buy it:  You’re unhappy.
By 2016, you will be paying a new tax of $695 per person, $2085 for a family, or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater.

If you are one of the 11 million people due a premium rebate in 2012 because your insurer didn’t meet the minimum loss ratio standards:  You’re happy.
The biggest consumer protection in ACA – the minimum loss ratio – is still in place, along with all the others.  You’ll get your rebate, and your insurer will be paying out more dollars for care in the future.

You or a child of yours is one of the 133 million people with a chronic condition and, especially, one of the 4 million who is uninsurable as a result:  You’re happy.
Your child with a disability will still be covered on your insurance, and as an adult you’ve still got PCIP in the short term until full pre-existing condition relief takes effect in 2014.

You are one of 48 million Medicare recipients:  You’re ecstatic.
Your donut hole coverage and preventive services remain in effect, and will even improve in the future.

You are one of the 17 million people living below 133% of poverty (currently around $31,800 for a family of four) who don’t have insurance:  You’re happy.
Unless your state decides to refuse to expand the program as a matter of principle, in 2014 you’ll be eligible for Medicaid.

You are one of the 13 million adult children currently on your parents’ insurance:  You’re happy.
You can stay on your parents’ plan until you’re 26.

This is the second in a series of five OHPM columns on the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. Tomorrow: the impact of the ACA decision on the future of private insurance.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

States and Rebates

If you run a small business in Florida, are self-employed in Texas, or work for a large corporation in New Jersey ( see an update below ), then your state insurance regulators probably haven't been working for you. The news that 15.8 million people can expect $1.3 billion in rebates from insurers this year because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) underscores how weak health insurance regulation has been in states across the country.  It may come as no surprise that Florida and Texas, two leaders in the fight against ACA, have been exposed as anti-consumer.  But they are not the only states with an anti-consumer bias. First, the good news: last week, the federal government announced that three-quarters of us will get letters beginning on July 1 telling us that our insurance plans paid out at least 80 to 85 cents in benefits for every premium dollar they collected. This means that under ACA they met the minimum standard for a reasonable benefit payout (which i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why the Republicans Have No Health Care Plan

There's a simple reason why (after more than a decade) Donald Trump and the Republicans have no plan to replace Obamacare. I'll explain in a few minutes. But first, some background. When the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) was passed in 2010, it was an effort to expand health care coverage to a lot of people who needed it, while controlling their costs. It had certain key provisions, not the least of which were that people couldn't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, that all chronic diseases needed to be covered fairly, and lifetime coverage caps had to be lifted. The problem was that if you left matters to insurers to set insurance premiums based on what this would cost, the price of insurance would rise dramatically. So the government took a look at three different programs and ultimately put them together into one system. For people whose income was so low that they couldn't afford any real cost-sharing, the government expanded Medicaid. For elders...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Ten Best and Ten Worst States for Your Mental Health

Connecticut spends four times more per capita on state mental health services than Texas.  In Florida, 25 percent fewer people report having mental illnesses than in Washington. Across the nation, there are significant differences in the amounts states spend on mental health services.  Connecticut spends $189 per capita, while Texas spends only $39. But there are also significant differences in the reported prevalence of mental illnesses.  For example, fewer than 18 percent of Floridians report having a mental illness during the past year, but in Washington almost 24 percent do. But what happens when you put spending and prevalence together?  Some new rankings emerge that give you a measure of each state’s real commitment to protecting mental health – and treating mental illness – in their population.  This week, I have ranked all fifty states using both spending and prevalence data.       I have taken per capita m...
12 comments
Read more