Just to give us a little perspective on things can you provide some details on this? Specifically what the details of the $1300/month plan are? Are we talking individual, individual + dependent, family? Also what are the deductibles on that plan? Kind of hard to say if it's good or bad without some more information. This is nothing new. Our taxes have been going to pay for health care in one way or another forever. Thinking and knowing are two different things. I think I'm going to kill a 170" this fall. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Again, some details would be nice. Total premium cost, what plan it is, how much your employer picks up, size of your company, deductibles, etc.
Well, not necessarily. First, they can stay on their parents' healthcare plan until they're 26. So that helps. Second, depending on how much money they make their healthcare cost could be pretty low. Most 20 something's making a starting salary will qualify for govt subsidies to help offset their cost. Even if they choose not to get insurance their penalty isn't going to put them in the poor house by any means. Assuming you make 30K/year your initial penalty will be $300/year, going up to $750/year by 2016. While I don't agree with the govt penalizing you for not buying insurance it's by no means an obscene amount of money.
Justin, I gave more details in a later post. I am in a 2 income family of 4. One child in college and another in highschool. All relatively healthy. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
FWIW most family plans through just about any private employer are going to cost that same amount of money. If you're getting healthcare for your entire family with low deductibles, low copays and prescription coverage for under $750/month you're incredibly lucky. Assuming they don't have employer provided coverage (business owner, contractor, etc.) they may not be able to get insurance at all, or their private plan rates are possibly twice that amount. So ultimately this is a good thing for them. If they decide they can't afford $1200/month (average number) for insurance they can always pay the penalty and get out for 1% of their income. Assuming combined household income is 40-70K you're looking at $400 to $700 for the first year all the while still having to cover 100% of healthcare costs out of pocket. I think a lot of people are making this out to be a lot worse than it really is. Again, not that I'm in agreement with 100% of it but in my experience there's a lot of anti-Obamacare folks out there with no real understanding of how this all works.
My current insurance plan is an HSA with no copays on office visits - we basically pay walk-in pricing which counts against our deductible. When my son gets sick it costs me $75 to bring him to the pediatrician for a visit. When I need to go for my semi-annual medicine checks (asthma/allergies) it costs me around $125 per visit. Let's assume my son goes 3 times a year and I go twice. I'm looking at $475 versus the $150 I would have payed with a $30 copay. Yes it's more but it's far from the point where I can't afford to go at all. IMO that's one of the most popular misconceptions about doctor visits and insurance.
Why should any taxpayer be responsible for any portion of my coverage? That is rediculous. My wife and I have a decent income. This is just a higher burden on the taxpayers. That they don't have now. Government just grew by an astronomical ammount. And our insurance is no where near 1300 month Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I agreed with everything you said, except this. It's going to take a LOT of young, healthy people paying into the system to pay for the one person with cancer, or HIV, or name any other serious ailment. To say the health insurance companies are coming out ahead is a stretch. Most health insurance companies aim for a 3-5% profit, and thats when they can underwrite and choose who they want to insure. This has the potential to bankrupt even the largest insurance companies. Unless someone deems them "too big to fail". You know what that means, more taxpayers footing the bill.
The Affordable Care Act is nothing more than a gateway to socialized medicine. We've all seen how well that works in Canada. Tfox is correct in his assessment. You can't polish a turd and that's what this is. The people that liked the idea of the affordable care act are the same ones who believe a utopian society can exist and are not well read on world history, especially that of Russia. These people are either delusional or lazy. There is no money to fund this, and I'm a strong believer in cutting the amount of free money people get right now. The only way to balance the budget and to start digging out of debt is to cut the fat off. We need to get spending under control in Washington. We have programs that support other programs that oversee programs. The ACA is just another program. We need less, not more.
This is one major concern I have. What happens when the private insurance has been bankrupted? We are forced into this if we want to keep some kind of healthcare. Will doctors get fed up with the bureaucracy and bail. What happens when we no longer have the best qualified becoming doctors. These are the long term effects I fear, and so do a lot of "experts" Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I think in the long run when the kinks get worked out, it will work out well(If it is still around). Dont know if that's a year from now or 20 years from now. Who it is hurting the most right now, are honest hard working Americans who don't make much. Who it's helping the most right now are the extremely poor and the dishonest poor. Sad part is, because it's a government mandate, crooked people will always find loopholes and find ways to game the system to their advantage.
"Far from killing private insurance companies, they're the ones who have the most to gain from this." You're almost right, but you're arriving at this conclusion for the wrong reasons. Insurance company executives have the most to gain. On the surface and leading into the implementation, it would appear the insurance companies have much to gain. That's how they got their shareholders to support the bill as sold to them and the a large segment of the public by a complicit media. However, that is a short term view. Who do you think the G is going to tap for the development/implementation of the single-payer system which is in the wings? The same insurance company execs who run the companies that are currently reaping the profits from every citizen being forced into carrying a policy. Look at the Fed as an example - a revolving door shell game between MSDW, Bank of America, the US Treasury Dept, and the Fed. The execs float back and forth, practically on a rotation. They draft policy, then go to work for the companies that benefit from the policy, then go back to work for the G implementing policy, and back again. The game is fixed. There is barely the illusion of a separation between the G and "private" financial institutions. The exact same thing is about to happen with health care. O-care is a classic Saul Alinsky bait and switch... create a crisis, then offer your plan as the solution. Unfortunately in this case, the "solution" is just another crisis-in-waiting, and the final solution as offered by the powers that be is complete socialized medicine. Honestly, if you take the morality out of the equation (which they do; Alinsky preached end/means justification) it is a brilliant plan. Just analyzing it as a stragegy; it is being implemented nearly flawlessly. I actually admire the effectiveness of the strategy even while despising its goals. Personally, I am all for killing the employer/insurance-based health care system; I just don't want the G involved in the system which replaces it. The solution is SELF PAY. Tax-exempt HSAs. Catastrophic insurance policies, partially subsidized by tax money for the poor and elderly. But there are too many special interest groups and lobbyists to allow that to happen, and too many LIVs (low info voters) who would gladly accept a G handout in exchange for voting for the politician who promises more and more benefits for less and less work.
I want to be treated like a customer rather than a patient. I pay money, they provide the service, period. Health insurance shouldn't be mandated. My two cents. How about rather than "trying" to make the health insurance more affordable or to have more people with insurance, why not help protect doctors from BS medical malpractice lawsuits and find ways to help cut down on the costs of specialized procedures, surgeries, and drugs? Another two cents.
Increasing peoples ability to pay does , in thoery, cut down on cost. However, when we increase the red tape and bureaucracy involved, it most likely increases their cost. There are no easy answers for sure. But, imo, this whole plan is bad for our country in every aspect. I believe much more could be accomplished in much less intrusive ways. Opening up state borders for competition. Focusing on the 2 groups that need help instead of forcing the whole into mandated coverage. Just a couple off the top of my head. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I sincerely doubt the quoted profit margins, there wouldn't be so many fortune 500 insurance companies if profit margins were that low. If you have some data to back it up, id love to see it. Im thinking more like 30-50% profit. There is a reason why so many people start up insurance companies, it's because it is a lucrative market. 3-5% is more like grocery margins, I dont know of much else that would work off of those slim margins other than high volume places like Amazon or wal mart
It's only paranoia if you're wrong. Even though I wish I was; I'm not. However, don't take my word for it - do 20 minutes of homework and find the progressives' own words and statements on this subject. They want socialized medicine. They know most of us don't. They are willing to "push" us into it one step at a time.
Is there something I'm missing? It seems like SELF PAY would mean an insanely high out of pocket expense for the average person. Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2
It's true that insurance companies have a low profit margin (same with oil companies) they have an insane amount coming in but they have an insane amount going out as well. They make their money on quantity, not quality. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Here's a couple. CARPE DIEM: Profit Margin: Health Insurance Industry Ranks #86 Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com) In case you haven't noticed, "people" aren't starting up health insurance companies. The bigger companies are buying out the smaller ones.
What's infuriating is that the working folks will be paying to make sure the deadbeats re-elect another liberal. Think about it.
Well... it's kind of like getting a bandage removed. You can pull it off slowly or just get it over with. The inevitable is just uncovered more quickly.
