Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again. This is a lesson from the past about the sort of outcomes we have to look forward to.
Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again.
If you read the article you’d know the ACA benefits point I mentioned has nothing to do with subsidies on insurance premiums. It has to do with prior to the ACA insurance companies could deny coverage for preexisting conditions.
I did read the article, and that’s true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended). In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year. It doesn’t help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can’t afford to pay for it.
I’m in my early 50s. Over my life, I’ve been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I’m looking at the cost of health care going forward and I’m very concerned that I won’t be able to afford it.
I did read the article, and that’s true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended).
I don’t disagree that health insurance companies (and their business practices) aren’t serving Americans well. However, as the article lays out the couple had the ability and will to pay for insurance premiums. The issue during the 90s was that any gap in coverage would mean health issues found during the gap wouldn’t be covered even when paying new premiums. That was fixed with the ACA. I was commenting on the article and their situation.
In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year due to the loss of ACA subsidies. It doesn’t help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can’t afford to pay for it.
I’m in my early 50s. Over my life, I’ve been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I’m looking at the cost of health care going forward and I’m very concerned that I won’t be able to afford it.
I agree with everything you said here. Republicans are poisoning that portion of the ACA unrelated to the article. I’m also doing the same math you are about making sure I have healthcare until Medicare kicks in. For many, health coverage will be the defining metric to when we can retire. Some of us are discussing that exact topic in a different Lemmy community.
Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again. This is a lesson from the past about the sort of outcomes we have to look forward to.
If you read the article you’d know the ACA benefits point I mentioned has nothing to do with subsidies on insurance premiums. It has to do with prior to the ACA insurance companies could deny coverage for preexisting conditions.
I did read the article, and that’s true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended). In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year. It doesn’t help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can’t afford to pay for it.
I’m in my early 50s. Over my life, I’ve been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I’m looking at the cost of health care going forward and I’m very concerned that I won’t be able to afford it.
I don’t disagree that health insurance companies (and their business practices) aren’t serving Americans well. However, as the article lays out the couple had the ability and will to pay for insurance premiums. The issue during the 90s was that any gap in coverage would mean health issues found during the gap wouldn’t be covered even when paying new premiums. That was fixed with the ACA. I was commenting on the article and their situation.
I agree with everything you said here. Republicans are poisoning that portion of the ACA unrelated to the article. I’m also doing the same math you are about making sure I have healthcare until Medicare kicks in. For many, health coverage will be the defining metric to when we can retire. Some of us are discussing that exact topic in a different Lemmy community.