• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,435 Excellent

About matttyl

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

11,055 profile views
  1. I'm still waiting on his response to my question in the other thread about insurance being "unaffordable" by the very definition the ACA uses for 47 out of 50 places next year for a family comprised of a pair of 35 year olds and one child just over the subsidy line. This is year 5, and we're not talking about a pair of 50 or 60 year olds (and they also only assumed a 10% premium hike for next year when in actuality it will be around 30%).
  2. What I've been saying for years - it's the costs of care, not insurance, that's the main problem. Lets solve that. If you knew that an MRI was $1,000 one place, and $2,000 another and you hadn't met your deductible yet - maybe you'd like to know those costs and maybe you'd pick the first one.
  3. Yet another shining example that he never should have given this much power to those in government. They simply do not understand insurance. If they want to take over "healthcare" altogether, that's a different discussion for another day - but we should have never allowed them to take over "health insurance" as they were bound to F it up. It honestly happened far sooner than I was initially fearing.
  4. any dynasty guys keeping him rostered till next year? My IR spot will be Aaron Rodgers at this point, don't know if I can roster him while hurt to hope he comes back to what he was.
  5. Good thing I drafted this guy in my rookie draft of my dynasty league. My other QB was Rodgers.
  6. Well, at least you're finally giving me some credit for something. Anyway, the only state where I've heard this applying is Montana, with 2 of the 3 carriers. Do you know of others?
  7. We'll see. Lots of people are still blaming the Democrats for all this. Lots of people, my clients included, are extremely happy they now have another option outside of the ACA due to Trump's EO last week. As I stated above, this EO could potentially help a lot more people than it hurts.
  8. And like I said, doing it then would have kicked 11 to 12m people off of their coverage on the first day of his presidency. You think what happened in Charlottesville was bad? We would have seen that in every city in America had he done that.
  9. Why? They apparently are, courts have even said so. Or a court has. I must admit, the legal side of it is beyond what I do - but if they were to end, then doing so at the end of one plan year and before the next plan year, with carriers knowing full well, and pricing for their ending would be the best and least painful way to do it.
  10. Had he done it then, mid plan year on the exchange plans - carriers would have left right then and there. In January. Leaving ~11-12m people with no coverage for the rest of the year. On the first day of his Presidency. Yeah, that's a great thing to do on day 1.
  11. so with Foster coming back, RAy-Ray will lose snaps (and potentially tackles). Is he a solid start this weekend or not?
  12. Well, what I posted above goes right to that point. There is no mandate if the cheapest coverage available to you is "unaffordable". You get a mandate exemption in that case. The determination of affordability is if it's under 8.16% of you income. Even at the relatively low age of 35, coverage is unaffordable in 47 out of the 50 places they looked at for next year when just over the income threshold. And again, and I can't stress this enough - that's only at age 35, premiums only go up from there. As it actually turns out, they did a pretty good job at enforcing the mandate (which yes, started out small) for the people who the mandate applied to. It didn't apply to lots of people over 400% of the poverty line because the cheapest coverage available to them was "unaffordable". That was set up by design - they weren't going to penalize someone for not buying coverage that would have cost them 20% of their income or more, which obviously they felt could happen.
  13. Very interesting read for anyone interested. Would really like @timschochet and @tommyGunZ to tell me their thoughts if they wouldn't mind. Basically - a month ago ehealth did a study and assumed that individual market premiums would only be going up for 2018 by 10% (nationally on average they will go up by over 30%, but that's a different story). Assuming only that 10% premium increase, they looked at what premiums would be in 50 cities for 2018 (taking away the lack of choices in those cites, the fact that most people would only have HMO policies and on and on - just premiums). They then made up a family of a pair of 35 year olds and one child (eerily similar to my own family's makeup) and determined what the premium for that family would be in 2018 without the help of any subsidies (as the family was just over the income limit for subsidies, right around $81k or so this year) in each of those 50 cities for the cheapest plan available (so the lowest priced bronze plan - which typically come with a $6k+ individual and $12k+ family deductible). The ACA deems "affordability" to be the cheapest plan available to you being no more than 8.16% of your income. 47 of the 50 cities failed the affordability test. And that was with only a 10% premium increase, and likely even more amazing is that the family that they made up wasn't a pair of 64 year old or even a pair of 50 year olds - it's a pair of 35 year olds with only one kid. This is EXACTLY what I said would happen years ago. Coverage would get so expensive that it would be unaffordable for anyone not getting subsidies. The average premium nationally for this family next year is over $9k for the year, with many places over $10k and one place over $15k. Make this family a pair of 50 year olds and two kids and those numbers easily double. People will stop paying those huge prices and find other options (healthcare sharing ministries, short term options, associations, or very possibly going without insurance altogether). Remember when I said we could easily see less people in the individual market because of the ACA? Some of you thought that was the most ridiculous thing ever - could happen as early as next year.
  14. Key statement. You had an option that was in a legal grey area for coverage (I wouldn't say it was criminal by any means, it wasn't - you weren't breaking a law, but you likely were breaking a contract, not sure they would have cared even if they knew), and you took it. Yesterday's EO looks to be doing something similar, and giving that option to a lot of people. Your leaving the market in New York years ago (along with a lot of other people doing the same, I think the entire individual market of the state was under 20k people) is what lead to the death spiral there. That was your doing, don't you feel ashamed? Haha, just messing with you - you made a choice that you felt was best for your family, I'd likely have done the same. This EO will create another potential option for lots of people to do just the same thing going forward. So like I said above, it could help more people than it hurts. But it could hurt those people a lot.
  15. Well, the ACA made the situation better for you - because you live in New York where the individual market was already extremely messed up (I can go into why, but I think you and I have had that discussion before). So maybe you were paying ~2,500/m for your family before the ACA. Say the ACA took those rates down to 1,700/m or even lower (I don't know your rates, just throwing numbering out here). Seems like a huge win for you. Your same family unit, though, here in Virginia which didn't have the same market regulations that New York had pre-ACA could have obtained similar coverage (though I don't know your family's health history, obviously) for well under 1,000 a month. Then the ACA hit and the rates went to 1,700/m (just like they did for you in New York). You'd have much different view of if the ACA was working or not.