DescentBB

Well for all of you that thought Obamacare was going to be somehow affordable, lets take a look at what the IRS views it costing:

"(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year."

"The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

So tell me again how this helps the poor get coverage?

well, once again, it pays to read the linked IRS document. They choose that example, not with any evidence it will cost that much, but merely as an example for the purposes of calculation. Because, once again, if you read the actual document and not some rightwing 'news' sites hysterics, the IRS is trying to use examples for citizens to calculate cost of insurance vs. waiver penalty rates. It is clear that the IRS is making ZERO assumptions as to the actual real-world cost, they are just providing sample calculation charts.

Further, if you actually ever read the details of the Care Act, you would realize that unless the premium amount is less that 8% of your taxable income, there are a series of paybacks designed to reduce the cost to the family. Of course, this is how the bill is rendering affordable care. Further, it raises the income ceiling for Medicaid eligibility so that the truly poor get FREE coverage. Once again, this doesn't fit the rightwing hysterics. But, for most people it will work out fine.

woodchip wrote:So tell me again how this helps the poor get coverage?

Because you’re going to pay for it, and it’s going to be more expensive buying poor people health insurance than simply the direct repayment of the losses at hospitals due to ER abuse, because insurance comes with that very special profit margin. (among other things)

Enjoy

woodchip wrote:..
So tell me again how this helps the poor get coverage?

The IRS didn't use unrealistic estimates, their numbers track right in line with what my premiums were for a family of four. They were going up between ten and twenty percent every year and would hit $20,000 in 2017. I dropped our coverage because of this. I self insure for the small stuff and if something big happens Obamacare will force the insurers to let me buy in. The penalty is low for now so I'm 'saving' many thousands of dollars in the short term the cost of this 'savings' is passed on to all of you. We are all going to help pay for it later.

Obamacare isn't sustainable. Using the complete bullfeces numbers that Obama cited it is unsustainable according to his own administration. Using the real costs which are approaching double his estimates it is laughably unsustainable.

So why would such a smart man do such a thing? How will this help poor people get coverage?
When things get so bad that everyone starts complaining he will step in and say 'George Bush made such a mess of Obamacare that the only way to fix it is for government to take over everything.'

That was his goal from the beginning.

It's funny, in a sad sad way, how if this was a republican president who misrepresented the numbers there would be a never ending barrage of press shouting at him every time he came near them.Instead Obama gets love and kisses.

I'll agree that the continuing reliance on private, for-profit insurers. Eventually, it will dawn on enough people that cradle-to-grave Medicare is by far more efficient, far cheaper and far more beneficial to the society. Until then, this bill is a slight improvement.

callmeslick wrote:I'll agree that the continuing reliance on private, for-profit insurers. Eventually, it will dawn on enough people that cradle-to-grave Medicare is by far more efficient, far cheaper and far more beneficial to the society. Until then, this bill is a slight improvement.

I don't see an improvement in cost to end users and poor people have the same coverage as before.
It will be a short term benefit to insurance companies and they will likely force legislation to ease their long term burden if the right wing gains enough power.

So unless you mean having inched closer to single payer gubment coverage is a benefit I think you are full of left wing rhetoric. Prices are going up at least as fast as the rabid rightwing warned and with amnesty putting millions of new users on the budget it only gets worse.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I'll agree that the continuing reliance on private, for-profit insurers. Eventually, it will dawn on enough people that cradle-to-grave Medicare is by far more efficient, far cheaper and far more beneficial to the society. Until then, this bill is a slight improvement.

I don't see an improvement in cost to end users and poor people have the same coverage as before.
It will be a short term benefit to insurance companies and they will likely force legislation to ease their long term burden if the right wing gains enough power.

So unless you mean having inched closer to single payer gubment coverage is a benefit I think you are full of left wing rhetoric. Prices are going up at least as fast as the rabid rightwing warned and with amnesty putting millions of new users on the budget it only gets worse.

if those estimates hold, a I suspect they won't, due to pricing pressure, and more well people in the system, the rise in costs have nothing to do with Obamacare. Also, since the definition of eligibility for Medicaid is raised, more people will get minimal coverage for free, not the same number as you claim.
As for the single-payer thing, yes, I do think many who voted for this bill are merely biding their time for a critical mass of voters to embrace cradle to grave single payer. It has vast cost saving advantages both for the public(lower overall costs for most workers) and government(less cumbersome paperpushing with one agency to deal with). I suspect that 2016 might be the watershed for this process, as I am starting to suspect the Dems will run a candidate who has supported the idea of all inclusive Medicare for her entire career.

I've got news, costs are going up no matter what system is implemented, whether it's Obamacare or something else, period. There ain't no magic program that's going to solve things with the current system and methods in which our doctors and hospitals operate right now. The nearly infinite demand we have for those services cannot be rationed in any fair way to make everyone happy. You'll either have the money and get to use the system, or be broke and not use it. Simple.

My costs have nearly doubled. Why? because of all the "free" services that hospitals and doctors have been mandate provide.

News flash.. Nothing is free. expense is only deferred to the other guy. Not even the internet. Someone is paying for something somewhere so you can view a website.

Duper wrote:My costs have nearly doubled. Why? because of all the "free" services that hospitals and doctors have been mandate provide.

that should be a source of unheralded savings in the Obamacare plan. Right now hospitals are utilized as primary care clinics by a lot of indigent people. Also, unpaid bills of the unisured go to inflate the premiums of the insured. I suspect that the rise in rates will slow a wee bit, but as long as insurers have a huge profit expected by stockholders and huge salaries expected by high level executives, it isn't going to be cheap......Another side of 'nothing is free' that all sides fail to consider often enough: advances in health care. In the US, we probably have the most sophisticated medical methods of any nation in the world. Developing those methods, and the instrumentation to deliver them, cost hundreds of millions, no, billions of dollars. The R and D, the implementation, the FDA certification process, patenting, etc, all cost serious money. Yet, Americans want to still have cheap healthcare that entails state of the art everything. The math will never add up for that. Ever.

Yeah, nothing is free and I agree a lot of this mandated "free" stuff is stupid. They give you these "free checkups" to "find" problems, hopefully early on, but that doesn't really help if they DO find some problems, does it? You still have to pay up, big time, if you want those problems "fixed", no matter what stage they're at. I can get free mammograms and pap smears thanks to Obamacare, so what? It's a drop in the bucket. If they find cancer, I'm going to be paying through the nose to cure it (if that's possible). So I've given up on finding my "preventable" problems before they happen. If I get those problems in the future, I'll just do the natural thing, die. It's gonna happen anyway. But we're ALL going to be paying to keep a lot of future older people ALIVE, and who ALL are going to want those expensive medical heroics, no matter what the cost. With an aging population, cancer care and end of life treatments are going to bankrupt us all.

TC, your approach to your own health is unwise........the main source of early death in many diseases is due to people putting off early testing. If you are insured, it shouldn't be so expensive to cure a disease if they 'find something' assuming you and your loved ones value your life.....

Also, if many conditions are caught early, they wind up costing far less to treat than if they're caught later on. Hell, death itself is pretty damn expensive, at least to those you leave behind.

callmeslick wrote:TC, your approach to your own health is unwise........the main source of early death in many diseases is due to people putting off early testing. If you are insured, it shouldn't be so expensive to cure a disease if they 'find something' assuming you and your loved ones value your life.....

Why? I don't like doctors or hospitals. I used to, but not now. It's become principle. They're nothing but wallet vampires and jobsworths. Their offices are dirty, the hospital's are dirty. They even wear street clothes instead of clean uniforms. They don't wash their hands, they slather on hand sanitizer instead. Patients are treated like cattle and the places smell like a stockyard laced with disinfectant.They don't care as long as they pull in the cash.

They've never done me any good with their testing and poking. They'll only see you for 5 minutes, if you even see a doctor at all, not long enough to really figure out what's wrong. I've never been cured of the thing that plagues me most, headaches. It seems like all they want is to test and prescribe pills for other things that they think they can cure, so they find something that they know how to fix and make enough money to send their kids to college. If I let them test me, I'm sure they'll find something profitable. My husband's even more sour on the medical system than I, but I won't go into that sordid story.

Most cancers don't even get found until they're too far along most of the time. By then, it's gonna cost. If I do get cancer, I'm prepared to die, because even though I have insurance, it will not cover enough of the costs to help stave off bankruptcy and besides, insurance may become too expensive to keep eventually. I don't want to be cured, or attempted to be cured and made sick for months or years on end, then up in the poorhouse.

I only have the insurance for things that can be fixed, like broken bones or heart problems. It ain't enough to cover cancer, or any of the other debilitating illnesses that require long term treatment or care. If I get cancer, no treatment for me. I watched my mother go through it and it wasn't pretty, she suffered through their horrible treatments and it didn't it save her life. It cost a fortune though. Nor did they catch her lung cancer early, even though it showed up on a x-ray a year earlier than when it was finally diagnosed. In time that could have possibly saved her life. Lot of good early detection does if they don't bother to look an a x-ray that's already right in front of their faces.

callmeslick wrote:[...
if those estimates hold, a I suspect they won't, due to pricing pressure, and more well people in the system, the rise in costs have nothing to do with Obamacare.
..

Obamacare was supposed to lower costs, I dont see how. What pricing pressure are you talking about?

Will Robinson wrote: Obamacare was supposed to lower costs, I dont see how. What pricing pressure are you talking about?

two things SHOULD be in play(note the word should, I am not possessed of a crystal ball): First, more people will be in the overall pool, and far more healthy individuals needing less care will be included. That should drive average cost per patient down, and thus premiums. Second, the Act gives leeway for more insurance entities, both for-profit and state-run to offer policies in the assorted 'exhanges', and this competition should keep pricing pressure down.

callmeslick wrote:well, once again, it pays to read the linked IRS document. They choose that example, not with any evidence it will cost that much, but merely as an example for the purposes of calculation. Because, once again, if you read the actual document and not some rightwing 'news' sites hysterics, the IRS is trying to use examples for citizens to calculate cost of insurance vs. waiver penalty rates. It is clear that the IRS is making ZERO assumptions as to the actual real-world cost, they are just providing sample calculation charts.



Further, if you actually ever read the details of the Care Act, you would realize that unless the premium amount is less that 8% of your taxable income, there are a series of paybacks designed to reduce the cost to the family. Of course, this is how the bill is rendering affordable care. Further, it raises the income ceiling for Medicaid eligibility so that the truly poor get FREE coverage. Once again, this doesn't fit the rightwing hysterics. But, for most people it will work out fine.

If there are paybacks would you care to show a link verifying that? Also I'm assuming the IRS has already taken any of your assumptions into account when figuring for the cheapest cost...unless of course you now are telling us you are smarter than the IRS at figuring this out. The poor have been getting free services. It's called the emergency room. Also if the income ceiling is raised for Medicaid how does that help the poor? If you mean the working poor then how will this lower costs when Medicaid is going broke? Seems to me by raising the ceiling you will end up putting even more pressure on medicaid.
I will make another assumption and that is some of the working poor may have had a insurance plan provided by their employer. Under Obamacare those employers will no longer supply a medical plan. All those people who had coverage will now be forced to buy a plan or pay a penalty. So explain to us just how this will all work and how most people will be fine. And what about those people not in the "most" category?

every point you raise, woody, has either been covered here already, or is in plain english for you to read in the text of the Affordable Care Act. That you persist in claiming that the IRS was doing anything other than putting up a number for the sake of calculation examples shows that you really don't want to consider cost savings. Nope, just another rant over settled law. Let's just see how it plays out, because it is, and will be the law of the land for the forseeable future. Like I said above, I don't posess a crystal ball, but I do understand the basics of how the law works.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Obamacare was supposed to lower costs, I dont see how. What pricing pressure are you talking about?

two things SHOULD be in play(note the word should, I am not possessed of a crystal ball): First, more people will be in the overall pool, and far more healthy individuals needing less care will be included. That should drive average cost per patient down, and thus premiums. Second, the Act gives leeway for more insurance entities, both for-profit and state-run to offer policies in the assorted 'exhanges', and this competition should keep pricing pressure down.

Obamacare also forces insurance companies to sell policies to people with existing medical issues. Like the day someone is diagnosed with a million dollar disease they can purchase coverage...
I wonder how the cost of the pool is adjusted upwards to include that? The penalty for not buying doesn't go to the insurance carrier so they can't use that to offset the expense of people waiting to buy coverage until after they are diagnosed with a long term expensive liability.

callmeslick wrote:every point you raise, woody, has either been covered here already, or is in plain english for you to read in the text of the Affordable Care Act. That you persist in claiming that the IRS was doing anything other than putting up a number for the sake of calculation examples shows that you really don't want to consider cost savings. Nope, just another rant over settled law. Let's just see how it plays out, because it is, and will be the law of the land for the forseeable future. Like I said above, I don't posess a crystal ball, but I do understand the basics of how the law works.

Until you provide a paragraph number or link verifying what you have said, then I'll just consider it more of your unsubstantiated bull★■◆●. And no I'm not going to spend hours going thru 2700 pages of the bill to verify what you seem to think is true.

woodchip wrote:The poor have been getting free services. It's called the emergency room.

So you really think that no one winds up footing the bill for unpaid emergency room visits? Like, say, the people who already pay for insurance and see their rates go up as a result? And you also think that the poor should use an emergency room as their primary source of care, instead of, say, getting regular check-ups at a normal doctor that can largely alleviate the need for such visits? There's a wonderful thing called "common sense," woody.

I will make another assumption and that is some of the working poor may have had a insurance plan provided by their employer.

In case you haven't noticed, most job categories that the "working poor" hold aren't exactly in the habit of granting employer-provided insurance. Maybe the most basic of coverage, if you're very lucky, but even that's a rare thing. You sure as hell aren't getting it working low-level retail or food service.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:every point you raise, woody, has either been covered here already, or is in plain english for you to read in the text of the Affordable Care Act. That you persist in claiming that the IRS was doing anything other than putting up a number for the sake of calculation examples shows that you really don't want to consider cost savings. Nope, just another rant over settled law. Let's just see how it plays out, because it is, and will be the law of the land for the forseeable future. Like I said above, I don't posess a crystal ball, but I do understand the basics of how the law works.

Until you provide a paragraph number or link verifying what you have said, then I'll just consider it more of your unsubstantiated ****. And no I'm not going to spend hours going thru 2700 pages of the bill to verify what you seem to think is true.

see commonsense from TC above. More has be previously provided. Links are unnecessary if you had any common sense.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:every point you raise, woody, has either been covered here already, or is in plain english for you to read in the text of the Affordable Care Act. That you persist in claiming that the IRS was doing anything other than putting up a number for the sake of calculation examples shows that you really don't want to consider cost savings. Nope, just another rant over settled law. Let's just see how it plays out, because it is, and will be the law of the land for the forseeable future. Like I said above, I don't posess a crystal ball, but I do understand the basics of how the law works.

Until you provide a paragraph number or link verifying what you have said, then I'll just consider it more of your unsubstantiated ****. And no I'm not going to spend hours going thru 2700 pages of the bill to verify what you seem to think is true.

Links are unnecessary if you had any common sense.

So in short you are just making another blow it out your ass statement and expect the sheep to accept your mouthings at face value.

woodchip wrote:So in short you are just making another blow it out your ass statement and expect the sheep to accept your mouthings at face value.

whew! Coming from you, that is plain hilarious, as you've long since proven to be the master of the repeated lie, and have been exposed at it so often that it's sort of surprising you would dare even imply that anyone else is doing so. All I'm saying is that nothing I said is a radical assertion, they are commonsense logic based on the law and it's aims. If you could muster the command of the language and state what, specifically, you need links to for 'verification', I'll be glad to burst your bubble as I always have in the past. Your call.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Obamacare was supposed to lower costs, I dont see how. What pricing pressure are you talking about?

two things SHOULD be in play(note the word should, I am not possessed of a crystal ball): First, more people will be in the overall pool, and far more healthy individuals needing less care will be included. That should drive average cost per patient down, and thus premiums.

My gut tells me that will only increase profits, without some government mandated controls that guarantee that all additional revenue goes towards lowering premiums, and I don’t see anything in the law that does that.

Also, it’s pretty dubious that a majority of the people that will be forced into the system will be a bunch of healthy young studs, seeing how I seem to be typical of many people without insurance. (also many of these people are the poor, often with very poor lifestyle habits, like drinking and other things that require health care in later years) And, yes I understand that the well to do have poor lifestyle habits as well, but these people also have insurance at the present time.

Also I believe demand for care will increase among those now having insurance, where most have gone without a great deal of care, regardless of how much ER abuse there is, because the ER does not provide any long term care, only emergencies. (you can’t go to the ER for cirrhosis of the liver)

Demand will increase disproportionally IMHO because when you force people to have something like health care…they are sure as hell going to get their money’s worth…I know I sure as hell will, and I have a long backlog of things to be taken care of.

Will Robinson wrote:Obamacare also forces insurance companies to sell policies to people with existing medical issues. Like the day someone is diagnosed with a million dollar disease they can purchase coverage...

um, since everyone will have to HAVE insurance, no one is going to suddenly buy after diagnosis. Also, the pre-existing condition thing was mostly used to eliminate a ton of routine conditions for middle aged people, who would have coverage in a company group plan. Oddly, many of the pre-existing 'conditions' are routine for women, and in no way dictate expensive ongoing care. Catastrophic care situations are not the usual issue.

I wonder how the cost of the pool is adjusted upwards to include that? The penalty for not buying doesn't go to the insurance carrier so they can't use that to offset the expense of people waiting to buy coverage until after they are diagnosed with a long term expensive liability.

as I explained above, your scenario won't happen. As for overall costs, factor in a small percentage of middle aged folks with medical issues, along with a ton of 35 and under people without any issues, and less hospital cost pressure due to less misuse of the emergency room and what do YOU think the net result will be?

Spidey wrote:My gut tells me that will only increase profits, without some government mandated controls that guarantee that all additional revenue goes towards lowering premiums, and I don’t see anything in the law that does that.

fair enough point, but I suspect(not choice of word)that two factors will negate that: public outcry when everyone has a stake, and expanded competition and scrutiny through state exchanges.

Also, it’s pretty dubious that a majority of the people that will be forced into the system will be a bunch of healthy young studs, seeing how I seem to be typical of many people without insurance. (also many of these people are the poor, often with very poor lifestyle habits, like drinking and other things that require health care in later years) And, yes I understand that the well to do have poor lifestyle habits as well, but these people also have insurance at the present time.

I can dig up a link if you don't believe me, but the studies I've seen have the bulk of the uninsured falling into the under 35 age group. Far less cost of care for that group, poor lifestyle or not, as the lifestyle hasn't caught up with them yet.

Also I believe demand for care will increase among those now having insurance, where most have gone without a great deal of care, regardless of how much ER abuse there is, because the ER does not provide any long term care, only emergencies. (you can’t go to the ER for cirrhosis of the liver)

what is hoped for is exactly a huge uptick in ROUTINE WELL VISITS, and as we tried to point out to TC, such visits pay massive dividends in cost of care down the line. This isn't some sort of magic, overnight fix that this bill is aiming for, but a long term institutional change in healthcare delivery. As I said earlier, I still don't think it accomplishes as much as universal national insurance through a single payer would, but for the time being.....

Demand will increase disproportionally IMHO because when you force people to have something like health care…they are sure as hell going to get their money’s worth…I know I sure as hell will, and I have a long backlog of things to be taken care of.

I figure most policies will be like the existing ones, with a certain level of deductables and family minimum out of pocket costs. Thus, folks will still be somewhat reluctant just to dash out to the doctor for any little thing. Plus, do you really feel the average person is going to go to a medical facility just to 'get their money's worth'? Really?

Not the average person now…but hell yea, if you are “forced” to buy coverage. And like I said, many things the un-insured are puting off.

It seems most likely there are 2 basic groups that don’t have insurance…

1. Those who can’t get insurance
2. Those who can’t afford insurance

Both of those groups will need to be subsidized after 2014 so even if somehow premiums slow their increase (no way they are actually going to go down…lol) you will still have to deal with increased costs thru either the deficit or taxes. (half a dozen of one 6 of the other)

I think it’s a myth that there are all of these young healthy people who don’t have insurance just because they don’t feel like having it.

Just look at the groups of uninsured…

The aged, but still working age, that have been displaced by younger people or foreign competition. (lots and lots of people who used to be employed at good jobs, now working at MickyDs or WalMart)
The poor and indigent.
The people who have lost coverage because of illness.
The people with pre-existing conditions. (probably more than anybody thinks)

Far as I can see most young healthy people have jobs with employer coverage, so where are all of the young un-insured whippersnappers?

And don’t bother with any links, I have seen them all…(there is so much bull★■◆● going on with this issue, I don’t even believe myself sometimes)

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So in short you are just making another blow it out your ass statement and expect the sheep to accept your mouthings at face value.

whew! Coming from you, that is plain hilarious, as you've long since proven to be the master of the repeated lie, and have been exposed at it so often that it's sort of surprising you would dare even imply that anyone else is doing so. All I'm saying is that nothing I said is a radical assertion, they are commonsense logic based on the law and it's aims. If you could muster the command of the language and state what, specifically, you need links to for 'verification', I'll be glad to burst your bubble as I always have in the past. Your call.

Read my replies. Like I said you don't have links.

links to what points, specifically, woody?

Spidey wrote:Not the average person now…but hell yea, if you are “forced” to buy coverage. And like I said, many things the un-insured are puting off.

It seems most likely there are 2 basic groups that don’t have insurance…

1. Those who can’t get insurance
2. Those who can’t afford insurance

whoa! You are leaving out a huge group....those who choose NOT to be insured, which are generally males under the age of 35.
…

The aged, but still working age, that have been displaced by younger people or foreign competition. (lots and lots of people who used to be employed at good jobs, now working at MickyDs or WalMart)
The poor and indigent.
The people who have lost coverage because of illness.
The people with pre-existing conditions. (probably more than anybody thinks)

Far as I can see most young healthy people have jobs with employer coverage, so where are all of the young un-insured whippersnappers?

a lot of under 26 year old didn't have insurance until this bill put them on their parents. I am an example of that, and put my daughter on my insurance. You might be surprised how many younger workers don't work for an employer with a mandatory health plan.

And don’t bother with any links, I have seen them all…(there is so much **** going on with this issue, I don’t even believe myself sometimes)

ahh, skepticism is good.....as I said earlier in this thread, we won't know the actual outcome until around 2016 or maybe beyond. And that was my key point in disagreeing with Woody's premise. No one knows....that IRS estimate was merely an exercise in calculation demonstration, with no basis of actual figures, and anyone who claims to be certain is on shaky ground. That's why I've gone out of my way to emphasize that 'this is the way it should work', as opposed to certainty.

callmeslick wrote:links to what points, specifically, woody?

Like this one:

"you would realize that unless the premium amount is less that 8% of your taxable income, there are a series of paybacks designed to reduce the cost to the family."

callmeslick wrote:...
as I explained above, your scenario won't happen. ...

Slick that scenario is playing out right now!

I dropped my coverage for a family of four which was at 12,000 per year and was rising yearly on target to reach that $20000 estimate the IRS used (which you declared was unrealistic).
The penalty I will have to pay for not buying health coverage is much lower than the premiums I would be paying and the penalties don't increase to make it cost effective for me to buy insurance for number of years.

Since we are all relatively healthy and my former policy had a 5,000 deductible, I still pay out of pocket for doctor visits, perscriptions, etc. only now I'm saving well over $10,000 a year and each year those savings increase as the cost of health care insurance premiums increase.

So for the short term, since Obama mandates I can buy coverage after any diagnosis, I have no incentive to buy in now!

I'm not the only one smart enough to see the benefit for waiting until the penalty actually equals the cost of the premium. So I think you are wrong, this scenario is reality.
And we both know that insurance companies take into account these situations when they calculate their risks and formulate premium pricing. So Obamacare is driving premiums up for now.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:links to what points, specifically, woody?

Like this one:

"you would realize that unless the premium amount is less that 8% of your taxable income, there are a series of paybacks designed to reduce the cost to the family."

hell, for that one, read the original document you cited from the IRS. It's somewhere around the late sections, like page 28 or so, if I recall.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
as I explained above, your scenario won't happen. ...

Slick that scenario is playing out right now!

I dropped my coverage for a family of four which was at 12,000 per year and was rising yearly on target to reach that $20000 estimate the IRS used (which you declared was unrealistic).
The penalty I will have to pay for not buying health coverage is much lower than the premiums I would be paying and the penalties don't increase to make it cost effective for me to buy insurance for number of years.

Since we are all relatively healthy and my former policy had a 5,000 deductible, I still pay out of pocket for doctor visits, perscriptions, etc. only now I'm saving well over $10,000 a year and each year those savings increase as the cost of health care insurance premiums increase.

So for the short term, since Obama mandates I can buy coverage after any diagnosis, I have no incentive to buy in now!

I'm not the only one smart enough to see the benefit for waiting until the penalty actually equals the cost of the premium. So I think you are wrong, this scenario is reality.
And we both know that insurance companies take into account these situations when they calculate their risks and formulate premium pricing. So Obamacare is driving premiums up for now.

I am somewhat taken aback at both you and TC in your choices, and might just be seeing the regional differences in available plans. I pay(right now, in partnership with my former employer under terms of the retirement package, but that changes in a year) $10,700 per year for a family plan, which would cover as many children as I had to, but need not because it's just my wife and I. For that, I have a $500 deductable, and a $2000 out of pocket cap, paying 10% of costs over the deductable. Annual limitation is $1 million per individual, which means it covers any catastrophic situation with the exception of perhaps certain major organ transplants in full. I don't, for the life of me, see why, for instance, TC claims to have coverage that only deals with routine stuff and wouldn't cover a major medical situation. I also, don't see why you should accept getting hosed for a $5000 deductable for the premiums you cite. I don't, in either case, disbelieve you, I am merely surprised. And, Will, given your example, if your numbers are correct, you probably would save money ditching the coverage, unless you faced something sudden and very pricey, in which case you could get burned. Is that really the best price you can get in your local market, because that price for that high a deductable seems like outright robbery, and if anything, should give you reason to support the idea of cradle-to-grave Medicare as VERY cost-effective.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:links to what points, specifically, woody?

Like this one:

"you would realize that unless the premium amount is less that 8% of your taxable income, there are a series of paybacks designed to reduce the cost to the family."

hell, for that one, read the original document you cited from the IRS. It's somewhere around the late sections, like page 28 or so, if I recall.

Is this what you were referring to?:

"The required contribution for self-only coverage under an eligible
employer-sponsored plan may cost less than 8 percent of household income, while the required contribution for family coverage under the same employer plan may cost more than 8 percent of household income."

So far haven't seen anything about paybacks. And you do notice the less than 8% is for a single "Self only" person and not a family. And this is for a employer sponsored plan. What about those who will not have a employer sponsored plan?

for that scale, you have to refer to the bill, but I'll do a quick look-see to try and find a synopsis someplace and edit it into this post.


EDIT--found a great summary:
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclu ... e856cdb9b5

to sum up high points--Medicaid eligibility for family under $29,000 per year(no premium)
subsidies on a sliding scale above that with a maximum out-of-pocket of around $6000 per individual, $12,500 per family from exchanges for all policies allowed to be offered from exchanges.

by the way, that link I just posted is a valuable read for everyone involved with this thread, or merely pondering the effects of the ACA. There has been a lot of bogus smoke blown about over the Act. It isn't, as I've said, perfect. It won't, as I've said, put the brakes on cost pressure from all sides on healthcare, but it should(and I repeat, SHOULD) control costs and be a great boon to most citizens. What it also does is provide a level of economic stability and certainty for businesses, and thus should prove good for business, despite what some partisan CEOs have tried to spout publicly.

From your link:

"About 23 million people will still lack health insurance, one third of whom will be undocumented residents who are not eligible for coverage under the law. "

So what about the 16 million who are legal? And why are they not covered? Wasn't the whole idea of Obamacare to cover those who had no insurance?

woodchip wrote:From your link:

"About 23 million people will still lack health insurance, one third of whom will be undocumented residents who are not eligible for coverage under the law. "

So what about the 16 million who are legal? And why are they not covered? Wasn't the whole idea of Obamacare to cover those who had no insurance?

as I said, the law isn't perfect, and that is the number that are estimated to still refuse coverage, or(more numerous) not apply for coverage out of ignorance, etc. A lot of homeless folks out there who don't have coverage, yet are still eligible.