Originally Posted By mawnck >>www.heathcare.gov<< <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.healthcare.gov">http://www.healthcare.gov</a> , actually. I copypasted and thought "oh shoot, it's down already".
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Looks like they are having some issues already because of the large numbers of people accessing the sites. Not surprising considering the interest in this. On the plus side, this shows just how much interest there is for people looking for health care coverage. Obviously, something like this was needed, and should have been in place way sooner!
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Obamacare launch hits early hitch as online traffic snarls up sites" <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/01/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBRE98T14R20131001">http://www.reuters.com/article...20131001</a> It's kind of annoying that the media is reporting it this way. These are normal issues with opening up a massive website - game companies run into these kinds of glitches all the time when rolling out a massive new online game with high interest. But, when the media presents it in this way, it makes it sound like just more "government incompetence" - which is just going to entrench the opinions of folks who have already made up their minds against Obamacare. Hopefully the issues sort themselves out soon, and/or the media gets tired of reporting on a non-issue.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Hopefully the issues sort themselves out soon, and/or the media gets tired of reporting on a non-issue. >>> If you think the reporting on the website being slow is media sensationalism, just wait and see what happens when the death panels get to work.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf To the OP, immigrants here less than 5 years generally are not able to get government assistance. I am guessing that applies to healthcare subsidies as well (medicare and medicaid are likewise unavailable). My mother-in-law from Italy (here 3 years) will have to pay $600/month for pretty shoddy insurance so be prepared.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< To the OP, immigrants here less than 5 years generally are not able to get government assistance. >>> I was wondering about that as well. But the OP said: <<< The[y] lived here for approximately 8 years before >>> The OP didn't say what citizenship his in-laws have. Assuming they are native to Brazil and were not born with US citizenship, having worked legally in the US for 8 years is long enough to get permanent resident status (i.e. a "green card"), and even perhaps to have become US citizens. I would guess that one of these two situations apply, as otherwise it would not be the easiest thing to have retirees from Brazil move to the US just because they want to. Either situation would qualify one for public assistance, but there's still the issue of being not quite retirement age and choosing not to work.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "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," FYI, even getting direct individual health plans from an insurance company, as of 1-1-14 they will not be able to turn away people due to pre existing conditions. They have to mirror the exchange plans with regard to that and what they cover, etc.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip OMG! Here we have a Texas conservative trying to find affordable health care for an unemployed immigrant from south of the border. Will wonders ever cease? Love ya plano, but do you see the irony? ;-)
Originally Posted By planodisney Man I really appreciate all of the good advice. Sorry, I've been out of town at a business conference. They are legal residents. Their plan is to stay here for at least 2 years without leaving and apply for their citizenship. My wife is already a citizen. They don't really want government subsidies but a decent affordable policy. We think we have found a bronze policy for 290. Waiting to here back from insurance agent. I tried the ACA site twice and could never get through. I'll let you guys know what happened. Once again, thank you all sooooo much.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Hey... I hope you don't think I feel you wanting insurance for them is wrong... I think it is GREAT that they may be able to get it under ACA. That is why I support it despite its flaws... it fills an important need that many people have no other way of filling. I just had to give you a little good-natured nudge based on the prevailing opinion of Texas conservatives.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <They don't really want government subsidies but a decent affordable policy. We think we have found a bronze policy for 290.> I think if it's termed a "bronze policy," it IS under the aegis of the ACA, even if you get it through an insurance broker rather than the ACA site. Remember, all the policies you get through the ACA are from private insurance companies - sometimes with subsidies. And I think the terms "bronze," "silver," and "gold" for insurance policies were created for the ACA.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ...As a way of making comparisons between different companies' policies easier to understand, I should say. All "bronze" policies need to offer a certain set of things, all "silver" and "gold" policies likewise.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<And I think the terms "bronze," "silver," and "gold" for insurance policies were created for the ACA.>> Actually, that's straight out of RomneyCare in Massachusetts. But the ACA did add an extra level, "platinum." RomneyCare only has three.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf FWIW, my mother-in-law, 65 years old, legal resident of the U.S. for 3 years AND a dependent of mine for tax purposes has a High Deductible Health Plan that is being canceled due to the exchanges being launched in California. Her old premium was $392/month and the Silver Plan in California will cost $734/month. And that's with an annual out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 ON TOP OF the $8,808 in premiums we will have to pay. That equals an annual maximum potential cost of $15,158. Her old plan had a $5,000 annual out-of-pocket cap (all of which was tax deductible because of the HSA component that was attached) for a maximum after-tax out-of-pocket of $8,004. That's an 89% increase in cost. While I appreciate the new system will help some, maybe even a majority of people, it is painful to others. For those of you who may be in a similar situation such as Plano, be prepared.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <has a High Deductible Health Plan that is being canceled due to the exchanges being launched in California.> Cancelled by whom, though? By her employer? If so, that's on them, not the ACA, though they're probably using it as an excuse. If they had cancelled it prior to the ACA (as various companies have indeed done over the years), she'd be facing even higher premiums trying to get insurance without the exchanges. <For those of you who may be in a similar situation such as Plano, be prepared.> The thing is, it seems to be helping Plano, or at least his in-laws.
Originally Posted By velo Is she a dependent only for your tax purposes? I'm not aware of any changes to HSA's; does she have one because she is employed? And, does/can Medicare factor in here?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Canceled by the ACA. High deductible plans (catastrophic health insurance) are no longer allowed to be sold under ACA except to people less than 30-years-old. Many people with some savings used those types of plans, feeling that they could cover all their routine medical expenses and just took out the high deductible plans to cover events like heart attack, cancer, etc. This is a very real problem and needs to be addressed at some point in time. I can see no reasonable reason why those plans should be banned.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The reason that happens, though, is because those plans don't tend to devote 80%+ of their premiums to actual health care - that's why they're not allowed. It's a little more complicated than just saying they were "cancelled." <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-12/national/41318345_1_grandfathered-plan-affordable-care-act-high-deductible-health-plans">http://articles.washingtonpost...th-plans</a> So they're not "banned" per se, and if a company could come up with a formula that worked within the "no more than 20% to profit" guideline, presumably they could offer it.
