Originally Posted By planodisney Hey everybody. I know this probably isn't the proper place for this topic, but I figured it at least revolved around current news events. I really need help and figured this was a good place to look. My in-laws moved here from Brazil about 1 year ago. They are retired and make about $1,000 a month here and they get retirement from Brazil. The lived here for approximately 8 years before and my father-in-law worked for Erikson. They need some sort of insurance. can anyone give me some advice on what my options are and where I should begin. The insurance exchange, private insurance or anything. I really have no idea where to begin for them. We have 2 small children and grandma and grandpa really want to stay here for a few years, but wont if they cant get some kind of medical coverage by next year. Can anyone out there help? Thanks
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I agree. There are a lot more people there than the relative handful who hang out here, thus increasing your chances of somebody having a good suggestion. I'd also suggest disclosing the ages of the people involved, and whether or not they're US citizens.
Originally Posted By mawnck I'm nervous that this is a setup, but since you aren't Donny (as far as I know), here goes: >>Potential Coverage Impacts under the ACA<< >>Lawfully Residing Immigrants with Five Years or Less US Residency Access to subsidized coverage will also expand under the ACA for non-elderly lawfully residing immigrants with incomes below 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level who have been in the country five years or less. As indicated above, adults in this immigrant category with incomes below 400 percent of the FPL who do not have access to affordable employer-sponsored insurance will be eligible for subsidized coverage in the health insurance exchange; those with incomes below 138 percent of the FPL will not be eligible for Medicaid coverage (except pregnant women under the state option) but can qualify for exchange subsidies if they pay two percent of income. This cost sharing requirement may constitute a barrier to enrollment for some immigrants in this category, particularly for those with incomes below 100 percent FPL. Also, subsidies for out-of-pocket cost-sharing will provide much less generous coverage than that offered through Medicaid, so even if poor immigrant families enroll, many may delay necessary care because of cost. Although qualified immigrants are subject to the mandate, some at the lowest income bracket will be excluded.<< <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/ImmigrantAccess/Coverage/ib.shtml#coverage">http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/Imm...coverage</a> So yeah, tomorrow they should probably look into that Obamacare thingy. Might be their best option (or it might not).
Originally Posted By SuperDry If they are healthy, they can probably just get regular individual health insurance policies that have been around for ages. The problems with those are that a) they can be expensive, especially for someone at that age, and b) may not be available at all for someone with a pre-existing condition, which would not be uncommon at that age. If either of those conditions apply, then one of the new Obamacare options might be the solution.
Originally Posted By planodisney Thanks guys. You guys are awesome. No pre-existing conditions but the problem is that they can't afford much over 200 a month, so I'm worried there won't be a solution.
Originally Posted By SuperDry A traditional individual policy for someone age 59 is likely to be several times more than $200/month. Even a no-frills group policy would I think cost several times that (including the employer-sponsored portion). I doubt there's going to be a US-based healthcare solution for $200/month that covers 59 year olds, unless you include some new form of subsidy that's part of Obamacare.
Originally Posted By mawnck Definitely let us know how they make out. If they can get an ACA subsidy that solves the problem, then that would be pretty amazing timing on their part! I 'spect it will depend some on which state you're in, as to what the coverage will actually cost them out-of-pocket. I also 'spect the Fox News team is salivating over the prospect of reporting all the horrible computer glitches that people are going to run into tomorrow on the ACA exchange sites. And I have no doubt there will be plenty. Imagine taking such a huge web service live, all at once, no real beta test, with the media and politicians all in your face. If nothing major goes "foom", it will be conclusive proof that the government is capable of doing at least some things amazingly right. Come to think of it, your in-laws might want to wait a few days ...
Originally Posted By planodisney Yah, I was thinking waiting a few days might be best for them. Thanks for the advice mawnck. At least you guys have given me some stuff to research. I know quite a bit about corporate implementation of the ACA, but pretty much nothing about the other end. Politics completely aside, Don't you guys think they have done a bad job explaining what The ACA does for most Americans and exactly how to use it?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Yes, I'll agree with that. As for the problem at hand... family coverage for $200 per month is going to be tough to get. Most family health coverage even with an employer contribution costs the employee over $200 per month. I currently pay $700 per month for single coverage. It is a University of Minnesota group policy, but the Univ makes no contribution for retired employees... we pay the entire premium ourselves.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Politics completely aside, Don't you guys think they have done a bad job explaining what The ACA does for most Americans and exactly how to use it?*** Perhaps they were just too busy having to explain to gullible idiots why it was not, in fact, a Nazi-esque plot to kill grandmothers.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think it was equally that no one knew what it would actually cost until the exchanges set their rates, and most of them have waited until the last minute to do that. Not necessarily the government's fault, but it HAS still left people in the dark. And of course uncertainty breeds fear.
Originally Posted By xrayvision Some states have done a great job in setting up and explaining their affordable care act exchange program and how to use it, while other states dragged their feet on setting up their exchange programs, if they set it up at all. So, it really varies state by state on how understandable and user friendly their state's ACA exchange program is.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< They are [59 years old and] retired and make about $1,000 a month here and they get retirement from Brazil. >>> That raises an interesting point. I'm not so sure they'd qualify for low-income subsidies since they are not working. After all, they're not yet at standard retirement age. What's to stop anyone from simply deciding they're "retired", choose not to work, and then qualify for welfare because they have a low income? That's not how it works, or certainly should not be how it works.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Some states have done a great job in setting up and explaining their affordable care act exchange program and how to use it, while other states dragged their feet on setting up their exchange programs, if they set it up at all. So, it really varies state by state on how understandable and user friendly their state's ACA exchange program is. >>> That's right, and unfortunately for planodisney, Texas is among the worst when it comes to the ACA - it's official state policy to oppose it at every step. My understanding is that there is some sort of federal replacement that's being arranged to cover people in states that are being difficult about it, but there's been almost no communication about it to the general public that I've seen. planodisney is right: there has not really been any sort of outreach program or "marketing" of the new options, or even how the program works in general. If you didn't keep up with the news, you might not even know about it at all.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>My understanding is that there is some sort of federal replacement that's being arranged to cover people in states that are being difficult about it<< My understanding is also that states that are being difficult about it also have some of the highest rates, since those are the states that major insurers are more likely to stay out of, leaving little competition. >>planodisney is right<< Yep. Sounds like the news media are going to be kicking into full "what Obamacare means for YOU" mode this week (finally!), but there are so many people whose minds are already made up and won't be interested in hearing whatever positives there are. And of course, the noise machine will be screaming about the "liberally biased media" the whole time, just for talking about it at all without calling it a civilization-killing plot by the job-destroying Nazimuslims. I wonder if the Republicans are counting on the rollout going badly, hence their refusal to cave thus far on the CR?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It doesn't help that some states - run by the GOP, of course - are actively trying to suppress information about the ACA, and the GOP itself is running a campaign of lies to confuse people about it.
Originally Posted By ecdc www.heathcare.gov is up and running. So far, smoothly (okay, the main page). Go try it out. Of course, if you click then Vladimir Lenin's ghost will give you a rectal exam, take your gun, and shoot your Bible. But those side effects are still way better than those listed in prescription drug commercials.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Politics completely aside, Don't you guys think they have done a bad job explaining what The ACA does for most Americans and exactly how to use it?" Without question. And into the void have stepped many in the noise machine with fear mongering, misinformation, and in some cases outright lies.
