@JohnnyH
No, I don't have any sources, but I researched the requirement in Illinois (for Medicad) and the "no savings" above ~$3000 was one of the requirements for Medicad. I think a lot of this is state specific. As for the reform, it is all speculation on my part.
@Maus
I think it would be good if everyone comes to terms that we aren't going to live forever. However, like Jacob mentioned in another thread, I can see my opinion changing if it was something that could have been prevented, like a polio shot.
Mandatory health insurance?
-
Night Runner
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:20 pm
@jacob:
I see what you're saying. True, there is that perverse incentive, but I believe that only a small minority remain unemployed because of that. Consider this: if most people were so wretched and lazy, the unemployment would constantly hover around 10%. Seeing how it's normally in the neighborhood of 3%, I think it's safe to say that most people who are currently unemployed could really use a job.
That, and contrary to what some conservative news outlets tell us, you can't really live large (or at all, in some parts of the country) on unemployment benefits. This all goes back to Reagan's made-up tale of a welfare queen in a pink Cadillac...
I see what you're saying. True, there is that perverse incentive, but I believe that only a small minority remain unemployed because of that. Consider this: if most people were so wretched and lazy, the unemployment would constantly hover around 10%. Seeing how it's normally in the neighborhood of 3%, I think it's safe to say that most people who are currently unemployed could really use a job.
That, and contrary to what some conservative news outlets tell us, you can't really live large (or at all, in some parts of the country) on unemployment benefits. This all goes back to Reagan's made-up tale of a welfare queen in a pink Cadillac...
I'm late to the conversation, but I don't see any postings here from the one state that does have mandatory health insurance: Massachusetts.
Even though it IS a government-imposed mandate, my personal feeling is that most folks here approve of our state's health insurance system, because it has meant that 97 percent of the population is now insured.
On the downside: This is NOT the single-payer system that is the only kind that really makes sense. Also, Mass. still has just about the highest health-care premiums in the country. So my wife and I, who are not employed, have to insure as individuals.
We opted for a "high-deductible" program and took some money out of my 401(k) to set up a Health Savings Account. Even so, we pay $1,000 a month for the two of us, which is a ghastly burden. And, we get almost nothing for that -- unless one of us needs a major hospitalization or something.
I briefly lived in two European countries, and I was impressed with their health systems, which were fully paid for out of the much higher taxes. In this country, IMHO, we slid into a crazy system of employer-based health insurance because of the labor shortage during WWII. It just doesn't make sense for employers to pay for people's health care. And what happens, then, to folks without steady, 40-hour-a-week jobs?
Sorry for the rant.
Even though it IS a government-imposed mandate, my personal feeling is that most folks here approve of our state's health insurance system, because it has meant that 97 percent of the population is now insured.
On the downside: This is NOT the single-payer system that is the only kind that really makes sense. Also, Mass. still has just about the highest health-care premiums in the country. So my wife and I, who are not employed, have to insure as individuals.
We opted for a "high-deductible" program and took some money out of my 401(k) to set up a Health Savings Account. Even so, we pay $1,000 a month for the two of us, which is a ghastly burden. And, we get almost nothing for that -- unless one of us needs a major hospitalization or something.
I briefly lived in two European countries, and I was impressed with their health systems, which were fully paid for out of the much higher taxes. In this country, IMHO, we slid into a crazy system of employer-based health insurance because of the labor shortage during WWII. It just doesn't make sense for employers to pay for people's health care. And what happens, then, to folks without steady, 40-hour-a-week jobs?
Sorry for the rant.
I lived in Massachusetts for a while and *hated* the mandatory health insurance. I think it amounts to a tax on the young and healthy, who are overcharged and forced to subsidize everyone else.
When I was self-employed, I tried to get catastrophic health insurance, and it was deemed less coverage than the minimum mandated by the state. I had to pay more than twice as much as I would have in other states for health insurance, just to avoid thousands of dollars in fines if I had chosen not to have health insurance at all.
Get this, just to file your personal state taxes, you have to collect forms from all health insurance providers you had for the year. If any company doesn't send you the form, you cannot file your state taxes. In 2009 I was traveling in Australia at tax time, had had two different health insurance providers, and could not submit the health care forms over the internet. I had to mail them. It was a nightmare. An unnecessary, beaurocratic, expensive nightmare.
I certainly do not approve. In fact, it makes my blood boil. I just can't do anything about it. (Except leave Massachusetts, which I've done.)
When I was self-employed, I tried to get catastrophic health insurance, and it was deemed less coverage than the minimum mandated by the state. I had to pay more than twice as much as I would have in other states for health insurance, just to avoid thousands of dollars in fines if I had chosen not to have health insurance at all.
Get this, just to file your personal state taxes, you have to collect forms from all health insurance providers you had for the year. If any company doesn't send you the form, you cannot file your state taxes. In 2009 I was traveling in Australia at tax time, had had two different health insurance providers, and could not submit the health care forms over the internet. I had to mail them. It was a nightmare. An unnecessary, beaurocratic, expensive nightmare.
I certainly do not approve. In fact, it makes my blood boil. I just can't do anything about it. (Except leave Massachusetts, which I've done.)
44deagle... see what Maus said above. For those who are truly ERE, the subsidy will be as extreme as the retirement. From his article:
"People who are really poor (earning less than 133% of the poverty level) will get free insurance through Medicaid, and people who are a bit less poor (up to 400% of the poverty level) will get a subsidy for the cost of their insurance."
See also: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
"People who are really poor (earning less than 133% of the poverty level) will get free insurance through Medicaid, and people who are a bit less poor (up to 400% of the poverty level) will get a subsidy for the cost of their insurance."
See also: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
I pay about $1000 a month for group insurance through an employer for family coverage. The coverage is equivalent to the low silver or high bronze level insurance in the MA exchanges. It costs about as much (and I'm grateful for it).
@44deagle - to get an idea, look at https://www.mahealthconnector.org. For an individual with $2000 deductible/80% coverage, it's about $250/mo.
The other side of mandatory insurance for the young is that they are paying for care that they might just use. Young people never get sick, until they do. Case in point - three acquaintances of mine got cancer at a young age.
#1 - had an employer sponsored health care. This person "got better" on the employee plan, and then saved up enough to last for 10 years or so (a la ERE). The person then quit the company and tried to start a high-tech company but didn't have health insurance. The cancer (predictably) recurred and was treated with public assistance care.
#2 - had an employee sponsored health care too. This person spent their last days in a stressful job to maintain his employment to continue cancer treatments.
#3 - got cancer while not covered by any health insurance. They were able to buy into the MA pool to get decent treatment, despite never having payed into the system previously.
As a society, we've made the decision that sick people will get treatment, even if they can't pay for it directly. Gripe about it, but that's the way it is. The question is - who will pay? Right now, I'm paying for #1 and #3. (If you've seen my other posts, you know that I grapple with this on a visceral personal level.)
Assuming it is paid for by/for all, then there's all sorts of other questions. Should it be market-oriented? Single payer? Single provider? Public option?
Personally, I dislike employer tied plans, and believe that market-oriented will eventually lead to better outcomes. But I also see how this requires something like the current (and coming in 2014) mess.
@44deagle - to get an idea, look at https://www.mahealthconnector.org. For an individual with $2000 deductible/80% coverage, it's about $250/mo.
The other side of mandatory insurance for the young is that they are paying for care that they might just use. Young people never get sick, until they do. Case in point - three acquaintances of mine got cancer at a young age.
#1 - had an employer sponsored health care. This person "got better" on the employee plan, and then saved up enough to last for 10 years or so (a la ERE). The person then quit the company and tried to start a high-tech company but didn't have health insurance. The cancer (predictably) recurred and was treated with public assistance care.
#2 - had an employee sponsored health care too. This person spent their last days in a stressful job to maintain his employment to continue cancer treatments.
#3 - got cancer while not covered by any health insurance. They were able to buy into the MA pool to get decent treatment, despite never having payed into the system previously.
As a society, we've made the decision that sick people will get treatment, even if they can't pay for it directly. Gripe about it, but that's the way it is. The question is - who will pay? Right now, I'm paying for #1 and #3. (If you've seen my other posts, you know that I grapple with this on a visceral personal level.)
Assuming it is paid for by/for all, then there's all sorts of other questions. Should it be market-oriented? Single payer? Single provider? Public option?
Personally, I dislike employer tied plans, and believe that market-oriented will eventually lead to better outcomes. But I also see how this requires something like the current (and coming in 2014) mess.
"I think it amounts to a tax on the young and healthy, who are overcharged and forced to subsidize everyone else."
This is true but how is it different than any other tax? There are always winners and losers, but I think the net goal of the taxes is to make sure that the worst off members of society have some form of assistance.
Personally, I think the mandatory insurance is a good idea (local optimum for the US). Although I would prefer state funded universal health care, I don't see how that could come to pass in the US.
This is true but how is it different than any other tax? There are always winners and losers, but I think the net goal of the taxes is to make sure that the worst off members of society have some form of assistance.
Personally, I think the mandatory insurance is a good idea (local optimum for the US). Although I would prefer state funded universal health care, I don't see how that could come to pass in the US.
@44deagle: Let me point out that the price of $1,000 a month for two people is for two people in their SIXTIES. Younger folks who are not part of an employer-based plan pay less. Thing is, at our age, my wife and I just might need the damn insurance. And, by choosing the HSA option, we at least get to control our own expenses a bit. Still, the health care system in this country is a disgusting, profit-driven waste that benefits nobody but the bloated insurance industry. No more ranting from me. The system is broken and the only real fix is single-payer, IMHO.
44deagle: Good point. I found this snippet in the law:
(C) No assets test.--A State shall not apply any assets or resources test for purposes of determining eligibility for medical assistance under the State plan or under a waiver of the plan.
However, I have not read the entire law so context may change the meaning.
Edit: See also http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... sset-test/
(C) No assets test.--A State shall not apply any assets or resources test for purposes of determining eligibility for medical assistance under the State plan or under a waiver of the plan.
However, I have not read the entire law so context may change the meaning.
Edit: See also http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... sset-test/
-
AnneBentham
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:15 am
If I don't qualify for free or really cheap insurance when the time comes (which I probably will because I'll have low income and mostly non-countable assets) I'll look into exemption on "religious grounds." I'd also consider moving out of the US if something like this significantly impacted my retirement plans.
-
veganprimate
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:25 pm
- Contact:
Some people are comparing medical insurance to auto insurance. There's a bit of a problem with that. Auto insurance is for accidents. Big, major traumatic events. Auto insurance does not cover oil changes, new tires, radiator flushing, etc. You pay for those out of pocket. Auto insurance is relatively cheap.
If you have a plan with your employer, just b/c you are only paying 50 bucks a pay period doesn't mean that's the cost of your insurance. Find out what you would pay through COBRA if you lost your job. THAT is the true cost of your insurance, and it's usually several hundred dollars. So, in that respect, it's actually cheaper just to pay for office visits and prescriptions out of your own pocket. I may have to pay 100 bucks for an office visit, but I'm only going to the doctor a couple times a year. Even if I have a prescription that costs 100 bucks for a month's supply, that's still cheaper than paying insurance 500 bucks a month so that I can have a 10 dollar copay only.
High-deductible catastrophic policies are closer to auto insurance in that they are meant for the big things.
If you have a plan with your employer, just b/c you are only paying 50 bucks a pay period doesn't mean that's the cost of your insurance. Find out what you would pay through COBRA if you lost your job. THAT is the true cost of your insurance, and it's usually several hundred dollars. So, in that respect, it's actually cheaper just to pay for office visits and prescriptions out of your own pocket. I may have to pay 100 bucks for an office visit, but I'm only going to the doctor a couple times a year. Even if I have a prescription that costs 100 bucks for a month's supply, that's still cheaper than paying insurance 500 bucks a month so that I can have a 10 dollar copay only.
High-deductible catastrophic policies are closer to auto insurance in that they are meant for the big things.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
-
veganprimate
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:25 pm
- Contact:
-
DividendGuy
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:58 pm
I'm disgusted by this new health care policy. I am 28 years old and right in the wheelhouse for the new policy of making young people buy in to spread the costs out. Not having health care insurance is a major part of my budget right now. I have never had a major illness, haven't had more than a minor case of the flu, have no major health concerns, I work out daily and am in great shape. If it wasn't for the fact that my grandfather and father had diabetes I would have no clouds on the horizon. Everything in life is a risk, we're all dying. I feel that risking my future on the hopes that I don't get cancer or break my neck is my right. Taking away that right angers me.
-
DividendGuy
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:58 pm
I've never heard of an auto insurance policy that pays for maintenance/repairs...and I've been in the auto industry for the last 5 years.
What AlexOliver sounds like he's referring to is an automotive extended warranty. It usually has different levels of coverage (silver, gold, platinum) for different levels of charges. They usually carry a deductible of $100. The most popular companies are Fidelity, Zurich and EasyCare.
Insurance and Extended Warranties are two different things. Insurance is to cover you in a collision/comprehensive claim. Some of the more popular choices are Geico, State Farm and Progressive.
What AlexOliver sounds like he's referring to is an automotive extended warranty. It usually has different levels of coverage (silver, gold, platinum) for different levels of charges. They usually carry a deductible of $100. The most popular companies are Fidelity, Zurich and EasyCare.
Insurance and Extended Warranties are two different things. Insurance is to cover you in a collision/comprehensive claim. Some of the more popular choices are Geico, State Farm and Progressive.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm