You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Oh, I definitely don't know the intricatcies of the plan, but I do know it effects less than 2% of the population and isn't the doomsday scenerio people have been making it out to be.
If that was true, it would have passed without anyone noticing like most other laws do. I assure you the law affects way more than 2% of the population.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
How so? Even the people who have a better understanding of the bill than I do, and support it way more than I do, are angry that it covers so few people. Nothing was going to be an easy pass in that congress. And there's no way a healthcare bill was going to be passed without anyone noticing.
The big thing to me, and a lot of other people, was the ACA, not the mandate. Again, I want a single payer system, public option. I love the ACA, I'm not hip to the mandate.
Here, this better explains it than I can:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77997.html
The individual mandate, the centerpiece of the health care law, is contentious, unpopular — and misunderstood.
So confusing in fact, that all sorts of myths have cropped up around it.
1) Everyone has to “buy” insurance or pay a fine.
The law says most people have to have insurance — but not everyone has to go out and buy it. If you have insurance through your employer or a government program, like Medicare, that counts. About 250 million insured people already meet the rules, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
That leaves about 7 million people who will have to buy insurance without the help of one of the subsidies built into the law, according to Urban Institute researchers.
2) People will have to buy insurance even if they can’t afford it.
Experts disagree on what affect the law will have on insurance premiums. Republicans argue it will actually add to costs, with some estimating the baked-in rules and regs will cost families $1,200 the first year, and at least a 13 percent premium excess charge in 2016.
But the law provides for subsidies for low- and middle-class people to buy health care in the new state exchanges. It’s on a sliding scale, with help available for families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, currently around $92,000 for a family of four.
Some people are also exempt from the mandate on hardship grounds. That includes people so poor that they don’t have to file taxes (income around $9,500 for individuals and $19,000 for married couples) and people who have access to health care through a job but would have to spend more than 8 percent of family income to take it up (after employer contributions and federal subsidies are taken into account).
3) Young and healthy people must buy expensive policies they can’t afford and don’t need.
While the young and healthy will be required to have health insurance, the law has some incentives for them. Young adults under age 26 can stay on their parents’ plans, if they don’t have an alternative through a job. People under age 30 can buy a lower cost “catastrophic plan” through state exchanges, which means they’d be covered in the event they were hit by the proverbial bus. Still, Republicans argue rates for the young and healthy could increase, even with the new provisions.
4) People won’t be able to keep their current insurance.
President Barack Obama often promised, “If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it.” And for millions of people that will be true. But as Republicans have pointed out, many people who work for small businesses will have to get different health plans in the next few years. And while they may have better benefits, under the new rules, they may also cost more. Of course, employers can change which health plans they offer workers, just as they do now, with or without the new health law.
5) The penalties are exorbitant. I could even get thrown in jail.
Being uninsured doesn’t mean you will be thrown in prison. You may have to pay a penalty — or as the court ruled Thursday — a tax. Starting in 2014, that fee is as little as $95, but it does rise to up $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016. Subsequent increases are linked to the cost of living adjustments.
One point of comparison: In Massachusetts, where a state mandate exists, only about 1 percent of taxpayers paid a penalty in 2009.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 … z2089xWs00
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
You're arguing something completely different than I am. I'm not saying more than 2% are going to pay a penalty. Or should I say "penalty". Given the choice of paying premiums or paying $95 if somehow caught without insurance, people are going to pay $95. Nobody pays that monthly for premium, so biting the bullet in case you get caught is no big deal. When they need insurance, they will pay the "penalty" and get far, far more in payouts than they will ever pay in. That 2% of people will cost far more than 2% of the money. So even if 2% is the number of people that get the penalty, we'll all pay for it. Insurance companies aren't going to eat the loss. The gov't isn't going to cover it. Where do you think it's going to come from?
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Okay, I understand what you're saying, but I wanted to have a better understanding of this myself. You can pay the penalty (which increases after 2016), but you still have to pay the medical bills, including the penalty, while having no insurance to cover you, while the penalty will keep increasing. So, you're screwing yourself in the long run, when you can buy a basic plan and get a tax credit back.
How I understand it is this: An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price of basic health plan. But by 2016, the penalty increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.
But you're absolutely right, I think there is a problem with this, until the fines keep upping to the point you can't afford to just pay the fine and buy insurance when you get sick. I understand they're tweaking this. And it doesn't seem to be happening in any significant proportion in Mass, where this is already in place.
Again, easier for everyone to just go to a single payer system and negotiate all drug and medical costs. Take the subsidies away from big oil and big farming and give them to doctors and hospitals.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Another new rumor i'm enjoying is, "83% of all doctors are gonna have to quit and go to another country or retire because they won't be able to afford to stay in business".
And once again, where are they going exactly? The rest of the world has ran a socialized health care system for years. Shows how little people on the streets in America know about the world. Utterly ashamed of them I am.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Another new rumor i'm enjoying is, "83% of all doctors are gonna have to quit and go to another country or retire because they won't be able to afford to stay in business".
And once again, where are they going exactly? The rest of the world has ran a socialized health care system for years. Shows how little people on the streets in America know about the world. Utterly ashamed of them I am.
LOL!!
I'm seriously dying of laughter!
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
The White House wasn't thrilled with the Supreme Court ruling because they really want that penalty to be a penalty, not a tax. This isn't a perfect distinction, but in general a tax is something that's meant to raise revenue and a penalty is something that's meant to coerce action. By the Court finding ACA constitutional as a tax specifically, it legitimizes people forgoing insurance and paying the tax. The administration wanted a stronger finding on that mechanism because it's really important to the bill's functioning.
The penalty is significantly less than the cost of insurance, at least in the first several years. So you'll have the same problem we have now - a lot of young, relatively healthy people will forego insurance and pay the penalty if they have to. Fewer people will end up paying into the system than expected, leading to higher premiums, which lead to more people choosing the penalty over insurance, which leads to higher premiums, and so on.
To raise the penalty enough to coerce people into buying into the program will require Congressional support. The Republicans can't repeal the bill, but they can sink its chances of working by holding firm there.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
We are one step closer to a single payer system. And that's a good thing
No, we're not. And a single payer system is not necessarily good. I don't get where people think that is the be all end all for healthcare.
