Reply With Quote
"One of those might actually be a cheaper option than paying the penalty"
IIRC, no. the penalty is under $1000/year, vs $3k-$4K/year for individual catastrophe insurance.
Well, you would temporarily lose your freedom and be liquidated also. Not sure it's such a tempting offer.
"One of those might actually be a cheaper option than paying the penalty"
IIRC, no. the penalty is under $1000/year, vs $3k-$4K/year for individual catastrophe insurance.
There is federal and state funding for various plans. Much of the insurance is subsidized depending on income.
Honestly, a single payor system, i.e. medicare would be vastly more efficient from a cost perspective.
Ramp up the taxes a bit, offer everybody insurance coverage. Medicare/-aid scales up.
That would, at least, have the benefit of making costs more out in the open.
Penalty for the first year the program kicks in, 2015: $15.
You need to read the SC transcript from the first day where the guy defending it was asked exactly that.
Penalty scales up after that, a softly scaling scale.
Not really, as pointed out by WH earlier:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=130
Either jail or law enforcement confiscating your property and auctioning it off.
Really.
He's talking per individual and not family which is the only rational way to discuss it since family size varies.
Got that wrong. It wasn't $15, it was $95. Sorry about that.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdfRequire U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085)per family or 2.5% of household income.
The penalty will be phased-in according to the following
schedule: $95 in 2014,
$325 in 2015, and
$695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014,
2.0% of taxable income in 2015,
and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty
will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undo ented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option
exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009
the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).
But don't forget the penalty is either the flat fee amount or a percentage of income whichever is larger.
Also, I don't agree that per individual is the only rational way to discuss this, seeing that insurance companies do normally provide discounts for family plans vs individual plans. There are no such discounts on the penalty (but there is a cap).
I'm actually reading the court transcripts. It's fascinating reading. I highly recommend it if this subject really interests you.
link? thanks
I'd take care of her free of charge.
It sucks that this girl's insurance will not cover past 5 million but what are the other options. I doubt that the government option would give her more than 5 million.
What i want to know is what is costing $1.25m per year. Is she constantly int he hospital taking up a bed? Is it a nurse having to work in their home? What exactly costs that much?
For that cost you should be able to hire multiple doctors at full time. Something just seems wrong that even constant care would cost that much. At $1.25m annually you should be able to hire 3 full time nurses to be around 24 hours a day and still have over a million dollars to have all sorts of medical equipment.
Probably the medication, I'm guessing...
Doubtful, she's on 2 anti seizure meds according to the article and even the newer meds aren't all that expensive. Here's a chart of the costs of the more commonly used ones...
http://www.consumerreports.org/healt...onvulsants.htm
Older ones like phenobarbitol are dirt cheap. My guess would be most of the cost of her care was from the hospitalizations and tests to diagnose the cause of her epilepsy. From the article, the parents are just guessing that the costs are going to continue at the same rate but they should go way down as the girls seizures are brought under control.
The article is seriously lacking details which is to be expected from a piece meant to pull at our heart strings in favor of Obamacare.
St. Jude's Childrens' Research Hospital will treat childhood cancer without regard to a family's ability to pay. The Shriner's -- yes, those awful Masons -- have hospitals all over the country that will treat childhood burn victims and other maladies (mainly orthopedic, I believe), also without regard to a family's ability to pay. I know there are other physicians, clinics, and hospitals that will -- on a case-by-case basis -- provide free or charitable medical care.
And, there are a mul ude of private charitable organizations that stand ready to defray whatever cost is associated with caring for a chronically ill child or loved one.
I have no doubt, particularly in the case of a child and because her condition is so rare, a benefactor can be located to help ensure her continued medical care until such time she either no longer needs it or her body is no longer able to tolerate the condition and she dies.
That's why these stories get aired. In the end, someone, a group of someones, or a an entire nation, always steps up to the plate.
Except when they don't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
