But you aren't adding "coverage for an additional 30 million people for free". Whoever of those 30 million decides to get insurance, will have to pay for it. Those who do not, will have to pay the fine.
Don't forget those 30 million people were going to get services anyways, and we were going to foot the bill. There's no new demand from a medical services standpoint. Allegedly, the fine would be used to offset what we had to pay to cover these uninsured people.
Again, there's nothing addressing the medical services cost, which is a huge part of the equation. The other problem I see is that while in theory increasing the pool should drive premiums down, there's nothing preventing the insurance companies to keep pricing at market-bear prices, so the difference would go to make their bottom line fatter. There's also no guarantees that the pool will increase, since the penalty really isn't as punitive as obtaining insurance.
You still aren't getting it.
Insurance premiums are what...$400 a MONTH for an individual?
The fine is $400 a YEAR.
Insurance companies will be required to cover pre-existing conditions.
Rational people will DROP their insurance and only pick it back up when they get sick.
It's not so much adding coverage for 30 million people for free as it is a question about whether it's more efficient to pay for those 30 million people by having hospitals overcharge everyone else's insurance, or to create a new federal bureaucracy to provide the insurance to those people directly.
That being said, I see no reason why anyone should expect things to get more efficient by getting the government more involved.
https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf...Fact_Sheet.pdfThe annual penalty for not having minimum essential coverage will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per individual or a percentage of the individual’s taxable income. For any dependent under the age 18, the penalty is one half of the individual amount.
The flat dollar amount per individual is $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016.
After 2016, the flat dollar amount is indexed to inflation. The flat dollar penalty is
capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount. For example:
o A family of three (two parents and one child under 18) would have a flat dollar
penalty of $1737 in 2016;
o A family of four (two parents and two children over 18) would have a flat dollar
penalty of $2,085 in 2016 because the 300 % cap would apply.
The percentage of taxable income is an amount equal to a percentage of a household’s income (as defined by the Act) that is in excess of the tax filing threshold (phased in at 1% in 2014; 2% in 2015; 2.5% in 2016). For example:
o If an individual has a household income of $50,000, the percentage would be 1%
of the difference between $50,000 and the tax threshold (which is $9,350 for an
individual in 2010). Assuming the tax threshold is $10,000 in 2014, this individual
would be subject to a percentage penalty of $400. Because this percentage
penalty is greater than the flat dollar penalty for 2014 (which is $95), he would
pay the percentage penalty.
Generally, the annual penalty is capped at an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage available through the state Exchange.
(PPACA §§ 1501 and 10106 adding IRC §5000A(c); § 1002 of Reconciliation Bill).
Whether $400 or $700 or $1000 per person the fact is it's still a lot cheaper to pay the fine and then go buy insurance if you get sick.
BTW, thanks for the link.
cheaper true, but you're still low balling it. $695 times three isn't $700.
the edit didn't help your math
I'm currently paying almost $1000 a month per family on my group plan that I provide my employees.
a $2000 fine might affect the feasibility of such a choice for a lot of people. (but of course not for you)
Really?
$2000 vs. $10,000?
You are apparently a smart guy.
Which one would YOU choose?
feasibility. if people can't afford the cost of (let's say)$400 per month for health insurance, it's fair to say they'll have trouble coming up with the $2000 penalty.
You still aren't adding "coverage for an additional 30 million people for free", you're simply making those sick pay more than those who are not sick at a given time, from a pool of largely healthy people (we're still dumping the high risk pool to medicare)
And the medical service cost still isn't addressed, which is the major driver of cost in general.
But not everyone can if they have pre-existing conditions that won't be covered.
I wouldn't drop my insurance if that were the case many would drop their insurance now.
I'm saying that healthy people that can AFFORD the insurance will drop it and pay the fine instead (thus saving money) knowing they can go out and get insurance to pay for it if and when they get sick.
I'm not understanding you. Are you saying that if pre-existing conditions were legally required to be covered by the insurance companies and you were healthy you would still choose to buy health insurance and pay for it every month you were healthy instead of just waiting until you got really sick to buy it?
the problem with the penalty is that it is nowhere near close to the $3K - $4K /year it costs for individual health insurance. the penalty must be adjusted to match insurance cost.
Damn.
Even Boutons gets it.
What will the penalty be for not paying the penalty?
You need to read the SC transcript from the first day where the guy defending it was asked exactly that.
Don't most people that actually have insurance get it through their jobs?
I thought individual insurance was pretty rare as it is because of the high cost.
IIRC, it will be charged as a tax, thus tax evasion would probably be it.
So jail time? Where one's medical needs are covered?
BTW, there are individual, high deductible plans for as low as $300/mo around here...
One of those might actually be a cheaper option than paying the penalty. And then you could switch plans as needed, obviously.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
