Now that H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" bill has passed the house and will likely pass in the senate... can anyone offer insights on how to minimize costs of the new laws?
For example, will health savings accounts count as health care coverage? Say I'm self employed with no health insurance. What's the cheapest way for me to satisfy these new requirements?
Do you know how this will change things for you and what you will do to save the most money under these new laws?
... I'm deeply disappointed that the House thinks they have the constitutional authority to force me to buy health insurance, but I'm trying to stay positive and pro-active. I want to come out of this as well as I can without focusing on the negativity I feel towards our elected government.
JTFH said: Now that H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" bill has passed the house and will likely pass in the senate... can anyone offer insights on how to minimize costs of the new laws?It's a good question but frankly, I think that your thread is a little premature. The Senate is almost certain to come up with a different version and the differences will have to be reconciled. Hence, we don't know what the final version, if any, will end up looking like.
JTFH said: ... I'm deeply disappointed that the House thinks they have the constitutional authority to force me to buy health insurance
I'm deeply disappointed that some citizens (and a lot of non-citizens) think that they have a constitutional right to force me to pay for their health coverage.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:00a
geo123 said: JTFH said: Now that H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" bill has passed the house and will likely pass in the senate... can anyone offer insights on how to minimize costs of the new laws?It's a good question but frankly, I think that your thread is a little premature. The Senate is almost certain to come up with a different version and the differences will have to be reconciled. Hence, we don't know what the final version, if any, will end up looking like.Nothing about the future is certain.
However, the time to consider our own alternatives and potential actions is not after the fact but during the time that the future seems to evolve.
For example, one way to profit from the recession was to take action before it hit.
mediocre1
Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:05a
I would think that the response to this healthcare bill would be similar to any other tax increase imposed by the gov't. Since we all know that any type of flat tax is regressive and unethical, it's time to put away as much in tax-deferred accounts as possible, otherwise you're going to be paying more than you should be for the generally unhealthy populace's healthcare costs.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:13a
Another consideration in the large sense is that this will reduce the incentive to make sacrifices to take jobs that provide health benefits.
Thus, the economy will become less efficient as people get health care without having to strive for it as much as in the past.
I can't afford the $60/month HDHP insurance now. I really wont be able to afford it when the bill passes and I have to subsidize irresponsible obese people with pre-existing conditions.
I am not sure what the law says, but the government wants me to pay 8% interest on student loans and I already barely have enough money for textbooks now and I won't be buying $100/month health insurance. If the law says buy health insurance or lock me in jail, then I guess I will be going to jail. Or I will have to drop out of grad school to get a job to pay for my own health insurance - which will be twice as much than I would be paying now as a non-smoker in his 20s with no pre-existing conditions.
gandhis said: JTFH said: ... I'm deeply disappointed that the House thinks they have the constitutional authority to force me to buy health insurance
I'm deeply disappointed that some citizens (and a lot of non-citizens) think that they have a constitutional right to force me to pay for their health coverage. But I believe every citizen deserves free/highly discounted healthcare from the government. If we can afford trilion dollar wars, we can easily afford free healthcare when these wars are not around. Looking at the situation across EU, I dont have any problem to pay a small part of healthcare cost of those who are not financially as fortunate as myself.
vstrt
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:31a
mediocre1 said: I would think that the response to this healthcare bill would be similar to any other tax increase imposed by the gov't. Since we all know that any type of flat tax is regressive and unethical, it's time to put away as much in tax-deferred accounts as possible, otherwise you're going to be paying more than you should be for the generally unhealthy populace's healthcare costs.
what fantastic advice. Yeah, put away money into tax deferred accounts so that you can pay through the NOSE in the future and in the meantime, you can earn your worthless 0.01% APY in their bull**** money market accounts.
That's all we need right now is more buffoonery.
I say, to hell with tax deferred savings (aka 401k, 401b, and other hocus pocus accounts) and stop spending money. let the corporations (including the healthcare conglomerates) go to hell.
For every dollar they pump into the economy, you cut back by $3. That will eventually bring this ponzi scheme to an end.
KGZotU
Broke Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:44a
I don't know whether this applies to the version that passed, but:
New health insurance policies sold in the individual and group insurance markets would be subject to several requirements regarding their availability and pricing. Insurers would be required to issue coverage to all applicants, and could not limit coverage for preexisting medical conditions. In addition, premiums for a given plan could not vary because of enrollees’ health and could vary by their age to only a limited degree (under a system known as adjusted community rating). Existing policies that are maintained continuously would be “grandfathered.”
I can think of a few other ways to net money under this plan:
Eat cheap, low quality food.
In general, don't spend any money on maintaining your health.
Don't worry, we'll shoulder your adult onset diabetes together.
To be fair, you'll probably rack up extra co-pays if you treat yourself like hell, even if your premiums can't go up. So there will be some _minor_ financial incentive for taking care of yourself.
Edit to emphasize the point of the quoted text: grandfathering of old plans.
sensia said: But I believe every citizen deserves free/highly discounted healthcare from the government. If we can afford trilion dollar wars, we can easily afford free healthcare when these wars are not around. Looking at the situation across EU, I dont have any problem to pay a small part of healthcare cost of those who are not financially as fortunate as myself. First of all, I think we all can agree: nothing is free. It's quite impossible... Second, what makes you think this will be small? Healthcare costs in the US are already the highest in the world thanks to "regulation" and I expect them to skyrocket now as this bill is nothing but a front for insurance companies to artificially increase the demand.
Second, I might agree with you in a perfect world... But our govt can literally do nothing right; education, social security, FDA. Even with an astronomical "defense" (lol) we can't control the outcomes of one of the world's most poverty stricken countries. Seems to me like the only thing it does well is enrich and protect special interests at our expense. Both D/R.
Why on earth do you think that this time will be different and they'll actually accomplish their stated goals?
Moving on: I wonder if a new market of dubious quality health insurance will emerge for people just looking to cheaply meet the new laws. I would certainly be interested.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:47a
sensia said: ...But I believe every citizen deserves free/highly discounted healthcare from the government. If we can afford trilion dollar wars, we can easily afford free healthcare when these wars are not around.Using that argument, one could rationalize ANY government expenditure, no matter how inefficient or unconstitutional it is.
Second, you assume that such wars are going away, even though recent developments point toward more conflict in the future.sensia said: Looking at the situation across EU, I dont have any problem to pay a small part of healthcare cost of those who are not financially as fortunate as myself.People who share your feelings have always had the option to voluntarily contribute to the health care of others.
Furthermore, keep in mind that taxpayers currently fund SSDI, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPS).
About 1/3 of Social Security payments go to the disabled and SSDI payments are about double those of Workers' Compensation. Link
mediocre1
Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:48a
All I'm saying is to reduce your taxable income as much as possible in this "blue period" in hopes that you cash out in the future in a better tax environment ("red period"). I think there was a thread on here saying something like 47% of Americans don't pay any taxes. Since we are a democrazy, all it takes are some of those idealist college students my age to run things in the way that taxes the middle and upper class the most - since we can afford it.
vstrt said: mediocre1 said: I would think that the response to this healthcare bill would be similar to any other tax increase imposed by the gov't. Since we all know that any type of flat tax is regressive and unethical, it's time to put away as much in tax-deferred accounts as possible, otherwise you're going to be paying more than you should be for the generally unhealthy populace's healthcare costs.
what fantastic advice. Yeah, put away money into tax deferred accounts so that you can pay through the NOSE in the future and in the meantime, you can earn your worthless 0.01% APY in their bull**** money market accounts.
That's all we need right now is more buffoonery.
I say, to hell with tax deferred savings (aka 401k, 401b, and other hocus pocus accounts) and stop spending money. let the corporations (including the healthcare conglomerates) go to hell.
For every dollar they pump into the economy, you cut back by $3. That will eventually bring this ponzi scheme to an end.
mediocre1 said: All I'm saying is to reduce your taxable income as much as possible in this "blue period" in hopes that you cash out in the future in a better tax environment ("red period"). I think there was a thread on here saying something like 47% of Americans don't pay any taxes. Since we are a democrazy, all it takes are some of those idealist college students my age to run things in the way that taxes the middle and upper class the most - since we can afford it.
It seems more likely to me that taxes will be HIGHER in the future, not lower. Once entitlements grow, they rarely are cut back, and we've all seen the government doesn't reduce its own spending. So, how else do they expect to fund these programs? Interest payments on our government debt are already projected to grow to large levels placing an even heavier burden on the government. Taxes are going to eventually give. The only other way to have higher revenue sources is to have sustainable boosts in GDP which come from innovation and new business ventures - the same kind of innovation that gets stifled in high tax and/or socialist environments.
We are moving on the same path as Europe now, and look at their tax rates for an example of where we'll probably end up at. I think tax planning should be based on current rates now, with European rates later. Save/spend accordingly...
This thread is going to be a 100 page thread on health care debate - just look at the vote last night, 220 votes. Regardless of your opinion for/against, it doesn't seem like a good idea to pass a $1.2T bill with such a close margin and such extreme party divides (even the Dems had a good chunk of people who were against this). The ruling party is sure taking advantage of the majority while they have it.
If you refuse to participate or pay for the plan passed by the house, its punishable by 5 years in prison and 250K fine. I tried to call my congresswoman yesterday, but conveniently, her office was CLOSED. what a bitch.
sensia said: I dont have any problem to pay a small part of healthcare cost of those who are not financially as fortunate as myself.
Great! Will you pay the extra cost the gov will try and force me to pay also?
JaneiR36
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:27a
Xnarg said: Another consideration in the large sense is that this will reduce the incentive to make sacrifices to take jobs that provide health benefits.
Thus, the economy will become less efficient as people get health care without having to strive for it as much as in the past.
Did you have the chance to read this thread: "Is there a HEALTH INSURANCE expert, salesperson, ex-salesperson, etc... amongst us?" ? I did a quick search for some text I thought was in the thread (didn't find it --yet), where someone essentially said it sucked that Self-Employed people, in the current system, were forced to take potentially menial, Cube Monkey type jobs, just because they would be able to get a good Health Insurance group rate from a large Employer. These people would sacrifice innovation, and superior use of their God-given talents, just because they needed to do the responsible thing and provide health insurance to their families. One of the better solutions for those who insisted on being self-employed appeared to be marrying or staying married to someone who had insurance through a large company...
Speaking of Large Employer group rates, if you are in good health, and have purchased health insurance through your company, you are already subsidizing the health care of others. Could someone explain to me why they believe this is not the case? I believe the conclusion reached in the thread I posted, or a similar one, was that if only there were a large enough group to which self-employed people could belong outside of large Corporations, health insurance just maybe could be affordable.
Instead of this health bill, really, what is the better solution for giving access to inexpensive health insurance (not necessarily care) for the masses?
RedCelicaGT said: If you refuse to participate or pay for the plan passed by the house, its punishable by 5 years in prison and 250K fine. I tried to call my congresswoman yesterday, but conveniently, her office was CLOSED. what a bitch.
JaneiR36 said: Xnarg said: Another consideration in the large sense is that this will reduce the incentive to make sacrifices to take jobs that provide health benefits.
Thus, the economy will become less efficient as people get health care without having to strive for it as much as in the past.
Instead of this health bill, really, what is the better solution for giving access to inexpensive health insurance (not necessarily care) for the masses?
I have my own privately paid for insurance. My $500 deductible plan w/ 5 million limit and $100 pharmacy deductible is considerably better than what my employer provides. I've been able to get great low-cost coverage from Blue Cross and now don't have to worry about what I'm gonna do if I lose my job. Granted, the cost is low because I'm in my early 20s, but my parents also have the same plan (in their 50s) and pay about $400 a month combined. Sure, it's a decent chunk of money, and my parents are no where near rich, but they make sacrifices to pay. Of course, increasing the deductible to $1000 significantly reduces that premium. Almost all people without health insurance can afford a high deductible plan for serious medical problems. Hell, cutting out that data plan and premium cable could easily pay the monthly premium for most individuals. Sadly, for a lot of people, the iPhone is just a whole hell of a lot more important.
The article is long but a good read. Look past the whole marriage debate thing.
The author uses examples of making divorce easier, providing health benefits for unwed mothers and their children and whether or not income tax should have been capped at 10%. The arguments that were used at the time are eerily similar to what is being said now to the effect of: by providing everyone the option to have healthcare will not prevent anyone from purchasing private insurance, etc... I think my family will not be able to afford private insurance if this goes into effect because of the skyrocketing costs that will undoubtedly be associated and passed down to the consumer.
While the intentions were seemingly good in these instances, the consequences have been towards devastating. Much like what is happening now with healthcare reform/public options, etc... While the intentions may seem good (I personally do not believe the intentions are good) the consequences will be devastating.
RedCelicaGT said: If you refuse to participate or pay for the plan passed by the house, its punishable by 5 years in prison and 250K fine. I tried to call my congresswoman yesterday, but conveniently, her office was CLOSED. what a bitch.
If that's true, I'll say f*ck it, throw me in jail. Let the taxpayers pay for my food and shelter for 5 years. Then when I can't get a job after 5 years because I am a felon, then I won't be able to pay back my $100k in federally guaranteed student loans. And I will need to collect welfare since I can't get a job.
JaneiR36
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:45a
zzzzz said: I think my family will not be able to afford private insurance if this goes into effect because of the skyrocketing costs that will undoubtedly be associated and passed down to the consumer.
Does the article you linked explain this? Because I don't understand the source of the associated costs and why they would be passed down to the consumer.
CapEx, that thread I linked detailed how just one insurance claim could cause your costs to spiral, or make them down-right unaffordable. This is why people with diabetes, HBP, etc cannot afford insurance. I imagine one response to that is take care of yourself and you won't be issued a death sentence. But apparently our pesky little Federal Government finds that to be unacceptable.
JaneiR36 said: zzzzz said: I think my family will not be able to afford private insurance if this goes into effect because of the skyrocketing costs that will undoubtedly be associated and passed down to the consumer.
CapEx, that thread I linked detailed how just one insurance claim could cause your costs to spiral, or make them down-right unaffordable. This is why people with diabetes, HBP, etc cannot afford insurance. I imagine one response to that is take care of yourself and you won't be issued a death sentence. But apparently our pesky little Federal Government finds that to be unacceptable.
My mom had cancer about 7 years ago. Insurance spent around 75k. Nothing changed at all.
RS4Rings
Back in Rehab
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:52a
It's not the cost that bothers me to much, it's the rationing that will eventually come that does. No way our system can handle such an increase in people. Saw that first hand here in MA when our health care law passed, People could no longer find primary care Doctors willing to take on new patients.
tripleB said: RedCelicaGT said: If you refuse to participate or pay for the plan passed by the house, its punishable by 5 years in prison and 250K fine. I tried to call my congresswoman yesterday, but conveniently, her office was CLOSED. what a bitch.
If that's true, I'll say f*ck it, throw me in jail. Let the taxpayers pay for my food and shelter for 5 years. Then when I can't get a job after 5 years because I am a felon, then I won't be able to pay back my $100k in federally guaranteed student loans. And I will need to collect welfare since I can't get a job.
I used to be against this bill, but now I am completely for it. Just think, 5 years with no BBB posts.
MoneyOCD
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:57a
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL TAX HIKES IN HOUSE GOVERNMENT HEALTH BILL (from here)
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a singleemployee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.
Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped). Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services. Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.
Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act.
Jobs Creation Act Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.
ETA: for those who really like their individualy bought plans
Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government
JaneiR36 said: zzzzz said: I think my family will not be able to afford private insurance if this goes into effect because of the skyrocketing costs that will undoubtedly be associated and passed down to the consumer.
Does the article you linked explain this? Because I don't understand the source of the associated costs and why they would be passed down to the consumer.
Health Insurance companies are businesses whose sole purpose is to generate profits. The business is not an entity to itself, it is built for the purpose of its owners who invest in the company. When you buy a mutual fund holding stocks, YOU become a part owner in the company. The owners are not just ridiculously wealthy people with gold plated chinawear on their yachts. I am an owner. Everyone who invests in the stock market is an owner.
As owners/investors, we require certain profits to be generated. I can get 2% RISK FREE from Alliant credit union. Why would I invest money in stocks if the profits are close to 2%? The historical gain of the stock market is 10%. This is the required return for an investor to be willing to take a risk. If 10% long term returns cannot be gotten, then no one will ever invest in stocks, and all businesses will fail. No businesses = no jobs.
Right now, health insurance companies are operating at their required profit margin levels in order to be sustainable to investors. If they are required to sell insurance policies to people in high-risk pools, and charge them the same as low-risk people, then they MUST raise their rates on everyone, otherwise they will go bankrupt. A high-risk person means that they are likely to rack up more in medical bills then their premiums. If someone is a diabetic with a poor heart and has a 90% chance of costing the health insurance company $100k that year, then the health insurance company needs to pull in $110k from that person to pay the bills and generate profit. Since the company can no longer refuse to issue a policy to that person, and must charge them the same price as everyone else, then EVERYONE'S policy will go up to cover that cost.
Imagine an all you can eat Buffet that charges $5 per person. Most people don't eat much. A few obese people come and eat $20 worth of food. The buffet says "you can't come here anymore." The government says, "not only must you accept them, but you can't charge them extra." The buffet either shuts down due to loss of profit, or raises their rates to $10 per person so that skinny people subsidize the fat people. As a fat person I would be thrilled! But I am a skinny person so I am getting screwed.
The big factor that weighs on this issue is that MOST unhealthy people got there by their own devices - eating unhealthy, failing to exercise, not taking care of themselves. I am all for subsidizing the person born with a rare unpreventable disorder. I DO NOT want to pay for the heart surgery of someone who ate McDonalds everyday for the last 20 years and is at 35% body fat. This health care bill is making responsible people pay for the irresponsible. Same as welfare and all other social programs.
lampy2k4
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 12:01p
RedCelicaGT said: I tried to call my congresswoman yesterday, but conveniently, her office was CLOSED. what a bitch. To be fair, 1) yesterday was a Saturday, so it's expected for office to be closed and 2) she was probably in DC all day listening to the "debate" for hours and then cast her vote late in the evening.
Now if she did not vote, then your anger would be appropriate - but I believe all Reps. were present.
How hard will it be to forge medical insurance coverage to bypass the 2.5% personal tax? Do we have to send a photocopy along with our tax returns? Or will the insurance companies report a list of consumers to the IRS at the end of the year?
CapEx said: JaneiR36 said: zzzzz said: I think my family will not be able to afford private insurance if this goes into effect because of the skyrocketing costs that will undoubtedly be associated and passed down to the consumer.
CapEx, that thread I linked detailed how just one insurance claim could cause your costs to spiral, or make them down-right unaffordable. This is why people with diabetes, HBP, etc cannot afford insurance. I imagine one response to that is take care of yourself and you won't be issued a death sentence. But apparently our pesky little Federal Government finds that to be unacceptable.
My mom had cancer about 7 years ago. Insurance spent around 75k. Nothing changed at all.
That is really good for you and your mother, but your mother at least seems to be an exception (your rate is reasonable as like you said you are young and in good health). My Dad is a year from being medicare eligible and has had some relatively minor health problems (controlled HBP, minor but ongoing back pain) and now can't find coverage for less than a couple thousand a month, even just for catastrophic insurance. I hear far more stories of people having to pay ridiculous amounts for individual coverage then I do stories like your moms.
Ideally what would control cost increases is the public option, but if it manages to get implemented at all it will be only available for like less than 1% of the population which will not help.
lampy2k4 said: To be fair, 1) yesterday was a Saturday, so it's expected for office to be closed and 2) she was probably in DC all day listening to the "debate" for hours and then cast her vote late in the evening. I don't care what day of the week it is. If my representative is going to cast a vote, i need to be able to contact her office. This vote was done on a weekend for a very slimy reason.
JorgeBurrito said: [My Dad is a year from being medicare eligible and has had some relatively minor health problems (controlled HBP, minor but ongoing back pain) and now can't find coverage for less than a couple thousand a month, even just for catastrophic insurance. I hear far more stories of people having to pay ridiculous amounts for individual coverage then I do stories like your moms.
If your dad is going to have a 99% chance of costing $50k in medical bills, 95% chance of costing $100k in medical bills, and a 80% chance of costing $500k+ in medical bills, why is it "ridiculous" for the health insurance company to charge a $5k/month for coverage?
And in a free market, if the policy could be issued cheaper and still yield a profit, why wouldnt another company step in and offer it for $4k per month? Or $2k per month? Or $200 per month? It's not a monopoly. It's a free market.
... I'm deeply disappointed that the House thinks they have the constitutional authority to force me to buy health insurance, but I'm trying to stay positive and pro-active.
Say you get run over buy a bus or slip and break an arm, will you stick your principles, refuse emergency medical care and continue staying positive? Cause I just can't imagine that a part of your pro-activitiy includes setting aside a few hundred thousand $$$ for such a case.
aleck said: Say you get run over buy a bus or slip and break an arm, will you stick your principles, refuse emergency medical care and continue staying positive? Cause I just can't imagine that a part of your pro-activitiy includes setting aside a few hundred thousand $$$ for such a case.
The vehicle insurance on the bus will cover the medical bills. A poor one, this example is.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 12:12p
JaneiR36 said: ...Did you have the chance to read this thread: "Is there a HEALTH INSURANCE expert, salesperson, ex-salesperson, etc... amongst us?" ? I did a quick search for some text I thought was in the thread (didn't find it --yet), where someone essentially said it sucked that Self-Employed people, in the current system, were forced to take potentially menial, Cube Monkey type jobs, just because they would be able to get a good Health Insurance group rate from a large Employer. These people would sacrifice innovation, and superior use of their God-given talents, just because they needed to do the responsible thing and provide health insurance to their families...You ASSUME that they're "sacrificing innovation and superior use of their God-given talents," however you have nothing to verify that.
The self-indulgent person who has no real talent would be given health insurance while he plays at making art or music or writing his novel or having fun doing flower cultivation or playing beach volleyball.
Suppose that long ago, tribes of people gave full benefits of living in the tribe to those who did not contribute. Would those tribes have survived or would they have perished? IMNHO, they would have disappeared in short order. At Jamestown, we tried your approach. The settlement came close to eradication. It wasn't until people were required to contribute what the community needed that Jamestown started to flourish. The same holds true now.
In the thread you mention, I think I provided an example of a guy I know who was indulging his fantasy as being a game designer. He wasn't really very good at all. When his wife had a baby, he gave up being a mediocre game designer and took a job at a help desk. He was providing a service that society needed - we sure as heck don't need a zillion more self-indulgent and mediocre game designers.
We are taking away the incentives for people to do things that society needs and we're rewarding them for indulging their own whims.
The inevitable result of that is an economy that is less efficient and less effective.
Why so many are pissed off by the individual mandate? Like someone (JTFH, I think) pointed out, NOTHING IS FREE. So the mandate is just closing a loophole which has been enabling people to free load.
As to 3B's rant about he can't afford the $60 per month HDHP premium as a student, free loading is not the right answer.
I am having a hard time recalling how much my insurance was in school in the early 90s. But it was a low deductible plan and nowhere near the $60. So what has changed? The basic medical needs of 20 year old students haven't. The average American is fatter, but the obesity caused illnesses come up much later in life. I am pretty sure other than paying whole lot more, 3B is getting the same medical care as I did in school. You would think technological advances should have lowered the health cost for at least this segment of the population.
tripleB said: JorgeBurrito said: [My Dad is a year from being medicare eligible and has had some relatively minor health problems (controlled HBP, minor but ongoing back pain) and now can't find coverage for less than a couple thousand a month, even just for catastrophic insurance. I hear far more stories of people having to pay ridiculous amounts for individual coverage then I do stories like your moms.
If your dad is going to have a 99% chance of costing $50k in medical bills, 95% chance of costing $100k in medical bills, and a 80% chance of costing $500k+ in medical bills, why is it "ridiculous" for the health insurance company to charge a $5k/month for coverage?
Cause when his Dad was young, he must have paid close to $500K in coverage over the years while using a small percentage of money he put into it. And now that the health insurance company made a chunk of change on him, he is SOL. At least in a year, the "stupid" government will step in, otherwise, he would just die, while proving the efficiency of the free market.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 12:19p
nycll said: ..You would think technological advances should have lowered the health cost for at least this segment of the population.They have, for comparable services.
One huge difference is that we have far more conditions and diseases we can treat now, and we have far better treatments.
tripleB said: JorgeBurrito said: [My Dad is a year from being medicare eligible and has had some relatively minor health problems (controlled HBP, minor but ongoing back pain) and now can't find coverage for less than a couple thousand a month, even just for catastrophic insurance. I hear far more stories of people having to pay ridiculous amounts for individual coverage then I do stories like your moms.
If your dad is going to have a 99% chance of costing $50k in medical bills, 95% chance of costing $100k in medical bills, and a 80% chance of costing $500k+ in medical bills, why is it "ridiculous" for the health insurance company to charge a $5k/month for coverage?
And in a free market, if the policy could be issued cheaper and still yield a profit, why wouldnt another company step in and offer it for $4k per month? Or $2k per month? Or $200 per month? It's not a monopoly. It's a free market.
Because the fact is he likely is not. They are using these minor ailments as an excuse to drive up profits. Any back related problems would not be covered under preexisting condition. His HBP is controlled and something that has been in our family for years, yet we have had zero deaths from heart attacks/strokes in our family. Even if he did have an heart attack it wouldn't surprise me if it was not covered. He is actually in good health for someone his age and is rather fit. I am not arguing he should not be paying a higher rate than someone who perhaps doesn't have some of the minor issues he does, but what they want him to pay is exorbitant.
nycll said: michal1980 said: Should my taxes go help pay for Nycll's health care? Or JoeFridays? Or aeiouy?If I am homeless or disabled, yeah. If I make a good living, no. In the grey area, 1x-2x poverty line, debatable.
Here is Ron Paul's (he was a medical doctor) perspective on this:
[quote]In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.[/quote]
I found this interesting in that in a way the taxpayer is still subsidizing this through theoretically higher prices for everyone who does pay the doctor, but it was a bottom-up enforcement rather than governmental top-down. This is the pinnacle of good conservative philosophy. However, I think that the private sector is much more predatory than in the past. This is because the most predatory corporations succeed and grow larger. In our lifetimes the rate of this has drastically accelerated mostly due to the speed of communication. There needs to be a force counteracting this. Does anyone disagree or have a better solution than government regulation of corporations?
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
