House COVID relief package supercharges ACA premium support

[Greenbeard]

Lots of stuff in the $1.9 trillion package the House Ways and Means Committee released today (to be marked up starting Wednesday):

Chairman Neal Announces Markup of COVID-19 Relief Measures

SPRINGFIELD, MA – Today, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) announced the Committee will consider nine legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions this week as the next step in delivering COVID-19 relief to the American people. Beginning on...

waysandmeans.house.gov

One notable item:

Reduces health care premiums for low- and middle-income families by increasing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) premium tax credits for 2021 and 2022.

How does it do that? It changes the way premium tax credits are calculated under the ACA to make them both more generous and more widely available (i.e., to people with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line). Making premiums more affordable this way has been a key Dem goal for years and now is as good a time as any to provide relief to people.

Here's the difference in how much people have to contribute to a marketplace plan:

Current law

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 133% FPL	2.07%
133% FPL	3.10%
150% FPL	4.14%
200% FPL	6.52%
250% FPL	8.33%
300% FPL	9.83%
Above 400% FPL	Full premium (no subsidy)

COVID relief package:

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 150% FPL	0.0%
150% FPL	0.0%
200% FPL	2.0%
250% FPL	4.0%
300% FPL	6.0%
400% FPL and above	8.5%

You can play around with the poverty thresholds to figure out the implications for any given family but as some examples:

• A single person making $32,200 (250% FPL) would see their premium contribution for a benchmark plan fall from $224/month to $107/month
• A couple making $26,500 (150% FPL) would see their premium contribution fall from $90/month to zero.
• A family of 4 making $106,300 (just over 400% FPL) would go from paying $1,484/month* to $751/month

*Just using the average benchmark in 2021 for a family of four quoted by HHS.

The long and short here being that a lot of people would see a lot of premium relief, particularly those at the bottom of the income ladder and those middle class folks who make too much to qualify for premium tax credits.

 

[Parrish]

 

[Greenbeard]

KFF to the rescue today with some handy visuals. (and a handy interactive tool at the link).

Impact of Key Provisions of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 COVID-19 Relief on Marketplace Premiums | KFF

This data note estimates how tax credits premiums will change for people at various ages and incomes under the temporary boost in subsidies included in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the COVID-19 relief plan signed into law in March 2021.

www.kff.org

 

[aociswundumho]

How does it do that?

By doing to healthcare what federal student loan guarantees did to the price of a college education.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Lots of stuff in the $1.9 trillion package the House Ways and Means Committee released today (to be marked up starting Wednesday):

Chairman Neal Announces Markup of COVID-19 Relief Measures

SPRINGFIELD, MA – Today, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) announced the Committee will consider nine legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions this week as the next step in delivering COVID-19 relief to the American people. Beginning on...

waysandmeans.house.gov

One notable item:



How does it do that? It changes the way premium tax credits are calculated under the ACA to make them both more generous and more widely available (i.e., to people with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line). Making premiums more affordable this way has been a key Dem goal for years and now is as good a time as any to provide relief to people.

Here's the difference in how much people have to contribute to a marketplace plan:

Current law

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 133% FPL	2.07%
133% FPL	3.10%
150% FPL	4.14%
200% FPL	6.52%
250% FPL	8.33%
300% FPL	9.83%
Above 400% FPL	Full premium (no subsidy)

COVID relief package:

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 150% FPL	0.0%
150% FPL	0.0%
200% FPL	2.0%
250% FPL	4.0%
300% FPL	6.0%
400% FPL and above	8.5%

You can play around with the poverty thresholds to figure out the implications for any given family but as some examples:

• A single person making $32,200 (250% FPL) would see their premium contribution for a benchmark plan fall from $224/month to $107/month
• A couple making $26,500 (150% FPL) would see their premium contribution fall from $90/month to zero.
• A family of 4 making $106,300 (just over 400% FPL) would go from paying $1,484/month* to $751/month

*Just using the average benchmark in 2021 for a family of four quoted by HHS.

The long and short here being that a lot of people would see a lot of premium relief, particularly those at the bottom of the income ladder and those middle class folks who make too much to qualify for premium tax credits.

Such good news. Been waiting for this.

Any idea how quickly it would take effect?

 

[Greenbeard]

Such good news. Been waiting for this.

Any idea how quickly it would take effect?

It's effective for all of 2021 and 2022, so presumably immediately and with folks getting some retroactive relief for premiums they've already paid this year.

 

[Neomalthusian]

It's effective for all of 2021 and 2022, so presumably immediately and with folks getting some retroactive relief for premiums they've already paid this year.

Hopefully we wouldn’t revert back to the cliff after that.

 

[jpn]

KFF to the rescue today with some handy visuals. (and a handy interactive tool at the link).

Outstanding news and excellent graphs.
The NYT has a good write-up about this as well: At Last, Democrats Get Chance to Engineer Obamacare 2.0 - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"...Republicans united against the law and, for the next decade, blocked nearly all efforts to buttress it or to make the kinds of technical corrections that are common in the years after a major piece of legislation.

"[Democrats] plan to refashion regulations and spend billions through the stimulus bill to make Obamacare simpler, more generous and closer to what many of its architects wanted in the first place.

"For certain Americans, the difference in premium prices would be substantial: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 64-year-old earning $58,000 would see monthly payments decline from $1,075 under current law to $412 with the new subsidies.

“Any one of these changes individually is moderate, but stack one on top of another and you get a big boost to the Affordable Care Act,” said Jonathan Cohn, author of “The Ten Year War,” a new history of the health law. “It doesn’t change the law’s structure, but it does make it much more generous.”

Wow. Maybe eventually we'll have health insurance that's almost as good as what's enjoyed by every citizens of every other developed nation on earth. Wouldn't that be something?

 

[jpn]

By doing to healthcare what federal student loan guarantees did to the price of a college education.

And yet somehow every other developed nation on Earth has figured out a way to provide health care to every one of its citizens at a lower cost per capita than the US has, with overall health results that are as good as ours or better.

Maybe everyone else is just smarter than us?

 

[aociswundumho]

And yet somehow every other developed nation on Earth has figured out a way to provide health care to every one of its citizens at a lower cost per capita than the US has,

When you say "developed" you mean those which have embraced capitalism and mostly free trade, correct?

And yet somehow every other developed nation on Earth has figured out a way to provide health care to every one of its citizens at a lower cost per capita than the US has,

Yes, due to price controls and waiting lists in those countries (which decreases spending), while the US healthcare providers ass-rape the American people thanks to the progressive regulatory state which has pretty much destroyed any semblance of a competitive market for healthcare in the US (which drastically increases prices).

with overall health results that are as good as ours or better.

Someone who dies on a waiting list is not included in the statistics. Also, leftist organizations are blatantly dishonest about health outcomes. For example, they will routinely point out that the US has a high infant mortality rate, but leave out the fact that the US will save premature babies that other nations will let die:

Premature Births Help Explain Higher U.S. Infant Mortality Rate

Informing a Smarter World

www.prb.org

 

[Integrityrespec]

Lots of stuff in the $1.9 trillion package the House Ways and Means Committee released today (to be marked up starting Wednesday):

Chairman Neal Announces Markup of COVID-19 Relief Measures

SPRINGFIELD, MA – Today, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) announced the Committee will consider nine legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions this week as the next step in delivering COVID-19 relief to the American people. Beginning on...

waysandmeans.house.gov

One notable item:



How does it do that? It changes the way premium tax credits are calculated under the ACA to make them both more generous and more widely available (i.e., to people with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line). Making premiums more affordable this way has been a key Dem goal for years and now is as good a time as any to provide relief to people.

Here's the difference in how much people have to contribute to a marketplace plan:

Current law

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 133% FPL	2.07%
133% FPL	3.10%
150% FPL	4.14%
200% FPL	6.52%
250% FPL	8.33%
300% FPL	9.83%
Above 400% FPL	Full premium (no subsidy)

COVID relief package:

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 150% FPL	0.0%
150% FPL	0.0%
200% FPL	2.0%
250% FPL	4.0%
300% FPL	6.0%
400% FPL and above	8.5%

You can play around with the poverty thresholds to figure out the implications for any given family but as some examples:

• A single person making $32,200 (250% FPL) would see their premium contribution for a benchmark plan fall from $224/month to $107/month
• A couple making $26,500 (150% FPL) would see their premium contribution fall from $90/month to zero.
• A family of 4 making $106,300 (just over 400% FPL) would go from paying $1,484/month* to $751/month

*Just using the average benchmark in 2021 for a family of four quoted by HHS.

The long and short here being that a lot of people would see a lot of premium relief, particularly those at the bottom of the income ladder and those middle class folks who make too much to qualify for premium tax credits.

It's largely just a payoff for democrat voters.

 

[jpn]

When you say "developed" you mean those which have embraced capitalism and mostly free trade, correct?

Actually my mental short-hand includes the 37(?) EOCD countries. Of course they have embraced capitalism. What countries on Earth have not, in some form or other? What's your point?

Yes, due to price controls and waiting lists in those countries (which decreases spending), while the US healthcare providers ass-rape the American people thanks to the progressive regulatory state which has pretty much destroyed any semblance of a competitive market for healthcare in the US (which drastically increases prices).

Please point to a nation that provides health care to all its citizens through an entirely unregulated private-insurance system. There isn't one. Because the free market doesn't solve every problem on God's green Earth. The free market plays a vital function. But there are some areas in which it just doesn't work.

Someone who dies on a waiting list is not included in the statistics. Also, leftist organizations are blatantly dishonest about health outcomes. For example, they will routinely point out that the US has a high infant mortality rate, but leave out the fact that the US will save premature babies that other nations will let die:

Uh-huh. Pretty thin gruel, this. Looks like you're laboring really hard to try to excuse the fact that the US lags in so many areas of health care despite the fact we pay from one-and-a-half to two times what everyone else pays.

 

[Neomalthusian]

It's largely just a payoff for democrat voters.

Ever notice how partisan liberals say the same thing about all Republican-proposed bills?

I bet you don’t even read or care to read any of the actual contents. This argument is locked and loaded and ready to go, no matter what a bill might contain.

Maybe the bill has provisions that are no good, or controversial. The provision this thread is about is a much needed fix to a simple policy flaw.

 

[Neomalthusian]

It's effective for all of 2021 and 2022, so presumably immediately and with folks getting some retroactive relief for premiums they've already paid this year.

I wonder if having fixed this some employers will look at intentionally paying the ESRP, hiking pay a bit and letting employees go to the marketplace for coverage. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Lovebug]

It's largely just a payoff for democrat voters.

Have you any idea how many desperate people are waiting for this?

 

[Razoo]

What happens to those who cannot afford to pay for any insurance?

 

[Wayne Jr]

.

Trash the whole thing and replace it with Single-Payer.

 

[Wayne Jr]

What happens to those who cannot afford to pay for any insurance?

The bill is picked up by those who can.

 

[JasperL]

It's largely just a payoff for democrat voters.

I didn't know there was a question as part of the package - "Did you vote for Trump?" and if you vote yes, the government says, SORRY LOSER!! You don't get relief.

Otherwise, it should be a "payoff" to lots of middle class people including lots of Republicans who will see their premiums go down. That's what helping the Real American Worker From the Heartland actually looks like. It's not bitching about liberals, which the GOP is good at, but they're not so good at healthcare.

 

[JasperL]

By doing to healthcare what federal student loan guarantees did to the price of a college education.

Too bad the GOP is so worthless on the subject. Maybe if they weren't content to sit on their fat asses and throw rocks at what someone else did, without having a clue how to do it better, you'd have the 'free market' healthcare plan of your dreams, and we'd all live happily ever after.

 

[aociswundumho]

Too bad the GOP is so worthless on the subject.

What do you want them to do? The problem with healthcare in the US is the sky-high prices caused entirely by government intervention. It's not politically possible for anyone to fix the problem.

 

[aociswundumho]

Trash the whole thing and replace it with Single-Payer.

Single payer doesn't solve the problem, which is the sky-high prices. If single payer could solve the problem, then a states like CA or VT would be able to make it work.

 

[aociswundumho]

Actually my mental short-hand includes the 37(?) EOCD countries. Of course they have embraced capitalism. What countries on Earth have not, in some form or other? What's your point?

My point is wealth and prosperity come from capitalism, not socialism.

Please point to a nation that provides health care to all its citizens through an entirely unregulated private-insurance system. There isn't one. Because the free market doesn't solve every problem on God's green Earth. The free market plays a vital function. But there are some areas in which it just doesn't work.

Correct, but healthcare isn't one of them. What is it specifically about the market for healthcare that you believe "doesn't work".

Please don't say "You can't shop for healthcare will you're having a stroke" because emergency care is only 2% of all healthcare spending and even that's inflated because poor people over-utilize emergency rooms. So if you use that reason, you need to address the other 98%.

Uh-huh. Pretty thin gruel, this. Looks like you're laboring really hard to try to excuse the fact that the US lags in so many areas of health care despite the fact we pay from one-and-a-half to two times what everyone else pays.

The high prices are a feature of government intervention, not a bug.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Single payer doesn't solve the problem, which is the sky-high prices.

Single-Payer solves that problem:

"...Divorcing capital from operating budgets eliminates the ongoing pressure to reap future capital growth by limiting reimbursement to clinicians. Capital, operating, and educational budgets would be nationally funded, regionally administered, and nonfungible. Applying national planning to regional budgeting would right-size capacity."

A Single-Payer System Would Reduce U.S. Health Care Costs

We Have Not Yet Solved the Health Care Crisis The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is introducing insurance reforms that will improve the lives of millions of Americans, but we need to go much further to solve the crisis in health care.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

 

[joko104]

Lots of stuff in the $1.9 trillion package the House Ways and Means Committee released today (to be marked up starting Wednesday):

Chairman Neal Announces Markup of COVID-19 Relief Measures

SPRINGFIELD, MA – Today, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) announced the Committee will consider nine legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions this week as the next step in delivering COVID-19 relief to the American people. Beginning on...

waysandmeans.house.gov

One notable item:



How does it do that? It changes the way premium tax credits are calculated under the ACA to make them both more generous and more widely available (i.e., to people with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line). Making premiums more affordable this way has been a key Dem goal for years and now is as good a time as any to provide relief to people.

Here's the difference in how much people have to contribute to a marketplace plan:

Current law

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 133% FPL	2.07%
133% FPL	3.10%
150% FPL	4.14%
200% FPL	6.52%
250% FPL	8.33%
300% FPL	9.83%
Above 400% FPL	Full premium (no subsidy)

COVID relief package:

Income	Contribution toward a benchmark premium (Percent of income)
Less than 150% FPL	0.0%
150% FPL	0.0%
200% FPL	2.0%
250% FPL	4.0%
300% FPL	6.0%
400% FPL and above	8.5%

You can play around with the poverty thresholds to figure out the implications for any given family but as some examples:

• A single person making $32,200 (250% FPL) would see their premium contribution for a benchmark plan fall from $224/month to $107/month
• A couple making $26,500 (150% FPL) would see their premium contribution fall from $90/month to zero.
• A family of 4 making $106,300 (just over 400% FPL) would go from paying $1,484/month* to $751/month

*Just using the average benchmark in 2021 for a family of four quoted by HHS.

The long and short here being that a lot of people would see a lot of premium relief, particularly those at the bottom of the income ladder and those middle class folks who make too much to qualify for premium tax credits.

The same damn Democratic lies as last time. It's just another income tax while wrecking healthcare.