26 Jul 12
To try to get back on track, the question in the OP is:
The accompanying letter included this sentence: “The 80/20 rule in the Affordable Care Act is intended to ensure that consumers get value for their health care dollars.” An article that I read on the Huffington Post today indicated that about 12.8 million households will receive such rebates, presumably with similar explanations.
As Republicans talk about “repeal and replace”, what effect do you think these rebates might have among the electorate?
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by vistesdIf rates are going up 24%, like sh76 indicated, rebate checks aren't the issue.
To try to get back on track, the question in the OP is:
[b]The accompanying letter included this sentence: “The 80/20 rule in the Affordable Care Act is intended to ensure that consumers get value for their health care dollars.” An article that I read on the Huffington Post today indicated that about 12.8 million households will receive such rebates, pres ...[text shortened]... al and replace”, what effect do you think these rebates might have among the electorate?[/i][/b]
26 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackThat depends on how people respond, which is my question. For example, if people think that premium rates are/have been going up anyway, will those who receive rebates see the the MLR restrictions as having at least an ameliorating affect? How will that be seen as factoring in to what rates might do next year--if, insurers have to keep that part of the premium rate within limited bounds?
If rates are going up 24%, like sh76 indicated, rebate checks aren't the issue.
You guys are making relevant points. I am asking something a bit muddier: e.g., how many of those 12.8 million (already-insured) are likely to support the ACA, and how might that translate into potential votes? Do you think that Republicans would do better to tone down the anti-ACA rhetoric for political purposes?
EDIT: My (individual policy) rate went up in April by about 22%; the rebate I received is close to 2 months' worth of the difference.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by vistesdI would guess that this situation would just magnify ones previous view. If you believe in the ACA you look at rebates and see it working. Personally, I look at 24% increase (which would mean health care triples every three years), the uncertainty of partial after the fact rebate and think how this system stinks.
That depends on how people respond, which is my question. For example, if people think that premium rates are/have been going up anyway, will those who receive rebates see the the MLR restrictions as having at least an ameliorating affect? How will that be seen as factoring in to what rates might do next year--if, insurers have to keep that part of the pre ...[text shortened]... up in April by about 22%; the rebate I received is close to 2 months' worth of the difference.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by quackquackWell, I think the system has stunk for a long time, and the ACA is a disappointment to those of us who would favor something closer to a single-payer plan.
I would guess that this situation would just magnify ones previous view. If you believe in the ACA you look at rebates and see it working. Personally, I look at 24% increase (which would mean health care triples every three years), the uncertainty of partial after the fact rebate and think how this system stinks.
But I suspect that your "guess" is correct.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by vistesdSomehow we are in a world where regardless of what happens, virtually everyone seems to believe that the situation is not good and that the facts are increasingly clear to them that the only way to improve the situation is to implement their plan.
Well, I think the system has stunk for a long time, and the ACA is a disappointment to those of us who would favor something closer to a single-payer plan.
But I suspect that your "guess" is correct.