General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sinkingfeeling
(51,499 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)You pay nothing for the insurance. That aside, at the cost of insurance as it stands paying the $800 ( if that is the cost) a year is a bargan.
If more people were told it is free for under &40,000 I think it would be more popular.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Plus maximum out of pocket costs of $4000.
This is for people without employer coverage going through the exchange in a medium cost market.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Not net?
dkf
(37,305 posts)
dawg
(10,626 posts)Using the link you cite.
dkf
(37,305 posts)
karynnj
(59,511 posts)That would be less than $200 a month - far lower than what is available on the open market now for a family of 4.
dkf
(37,305 posts)It's too bad it can't work that way. And then you just need catastrophic.
awwwsheet
(21 posts)is that true or do you only have to pay once you earn enough money?
dkf
(37,305 posts)You don't have to pay if you qualify for Medicaid.
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
awwwsheet
(21 posts)hmm
dkf
(37,305 posts)You can try it yourself.
awwwsheet
(21 posts)karynnj
(59,511 posts)the premium is slightly below $2000 a year because the government is paying 82% of the premium.
Note that this insurance will cover the well visits of the kids and their shots and annual examinations of the parents. What is the value of that?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Medicaid expansion is supposed to cover "the poor". The exchanges are supposed to cover people who make too much to be "the poor".
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Is by creating a framework through which we can implement single-payer.
Exchanges get set up -> blue states put in public options -> public options don't kill people, are cheaper -> public options drive private insurance out of blue states -> purple states follow suit -> public options get merged into small number of cross-state entities to save even more money -> enough support for national single-payer over the objections of red states.
It's silly to pretend health care reform is "done" with the ACA. It's taken decades to get Social Security to where it is. We will be working on health care reform for decades.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)because when the working poor get stung with being forced to shell out more money than they already are, hell will totally break loose. Everyone who's been yapping about how the poor can cope with an extra 80 bucks a month of financial burden will be saying "Uhhhh I didn't say that" when the shit hits the fan. And this Heritage Foundation individual mandate brainchild will hit the fan, badly.
I only hope that people focus their rage on the individual mandate and not the whole ACA. It's the mandate that's poisoning the whole pot.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We can only move forward if there are problems to be solved. No problems, no changes. So if we had miraculously created a system that included private insurance and it worked well, single payer would never happen. Such as in Switzerland.
Yes, it will hurt a relatively small number of people in the short run - there's few people who fall into your example of 40 years old and have no kids and make $20k/year. The vast majority of 40-year-olds have kids and thus qualify for Medicaid. Or get paid more by 40. Or they get paid less due to disability, which again gets them coverage. Younger people, who are much more likely to make $20k and have no kids, are cheaper to insure.
But this pain will be felt in a relatively painless way - the penalty is assessed on their tax returns, so the real-world result will be a reduction in their tax refund, as opposed to shelling out $80/mo. And this provides the problem to be solved.
maryellen99
(3,790 posts)You don't have to pay the tax correct?
dkf
(37,305 posts)And you are subject to the tax. This is probably where a lot of the 6 million comes from.
Remember the guy in the Obama super PAC ad (his wife died of cancer) decided not to add his wife to his policy. Under the ACA he would have had to pay a penalty and maybe would have added her.
karynnj
(59,511 posts)maryellen99
(3,790 posts)BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)And got $85 a month after the subsidies.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)It needs to be, so we all know whats coming. I did some research and see that medicaid will pick up some of the cost but I thought there are states refusing medicaid. I am totally confused. I am on SS and ChampVa and dont sure how that will be impacted or if it will be.
karynnj
(59,511 posts)There is no reason to assume that ChampVA would be affected. Did you mean Medicare rather than SS?
Sorry, I am on Medicare, as, and champva.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)That's even bigger than the numbers I got. For someone earning 20K a year that's devastating.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)But I support myself and yes, $85 is quite a bit of money to throw down a hole.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)and get used to eating cat food.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)
Yavin4
(35,455 posts)I'm all for a Single Payer system, and I would levy a national sales tax on any goods or services (excluding food, clothing, shelter, and health care) to pay for it. That's how European nations fund their social programs.
dkf
(37,305 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Yavin4
(35,455 posts)Also, politically, it gives them a big issue. The rich can rightly claim that they are paying for people's healthcare.
No, Single Payer should be paid for with VAT taxes on non-essential items.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)A lot of rich people AND corporations are paying ZERO taxes. WTF. They can shoulder more of the burden. What makes you think that options isn't enough? We can cut military spending and end corporate welfare, too.
Yavin4
(35,455 posts)nor will ending corp. welfare and cutting military spending. You will need new revenue streams to pay for it. The Europeans pay for their social services with VAT taxes.
Also, you're giving the rich a huge political wedge issue.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)What is this, appease the rich hour?
Yavin4
(35,455 posts)The rich should pay higher taxes in general. No question, but the wealth of the rich alone cannot be the sole revenue source for a Single Payer health care system. In addition, you are giving them a huge wedge issue.
You don't want Single Payer to be financed at the mercy of the rich.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)They make anything into a wedge issue. The problem is not them making wedge issues, it's the fact that the working class has been given wedgies instead of wedge issues.
This country belongs to the working class.
Missycim
(950 posts)it on to us.
Why should they be the only ones paying? Don't you think all should pay at least a little so they could feel like they are part of it?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)They can also cut CEO salaries, rather than just pass it onto "us".
As for "All", we all pay already as it is. It's Bank of America and other corporations who are income tax freeloaders. We pay for their tax refunds. First you need to acknowledge that.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)now, but can afford it.
That's what the ACA is all about. But it doesn't provide for everyone. There are still some that will fall thru the cracks. But they will be no worse off than now.
Imagine...being able to get healthcare for $85 a month, when they had none at all before? This is a good thing.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You've got people here on this thread earning $20k a year. Adding an extra 85 a month expense is going to be downright devastating. When I was poor like that I know damned well it would be devastating.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)because they spend a much larger percentage of their income than the rich do, even if you exclude those items. The rich can hoard most of their money and/or invest it, thus avoiding paying this tax; they don't have to spend all their money. The poor don't have that choice and thus will pay far more in taxes than the rich.
Yavin4
(35,455 posts)With a VAT tax, much like payroll taxes, everybody pays something and everybody benefits. That's why these programs have strong political support.
Excluding food, housing, clothing, and health care, the VAT tax would be levied primarily on discretionary spending.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)to those that can afford insurance but refuse it.
If you A) have insurance or B) can't afford it... it doesn't affect you at all.
I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's healthcare at the ER when they can afford it.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Really? No compassion for the working poor who make too much for Medicaid?
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)If you make up to 4 times the poverty level, you do NOT have to pay the mandate.
So... yes... I have compassion for the working poor... that is why I support the ACA. It doesnt cost the working poor a cent, yet gives them coverage.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)A single, uninsured 40 year old person earning $20k a year pays $84 extra a MONTH for insurance.
If that person makes $28k a year, THEIR BURDEN MORE THAN DOUBLES to $182 extra PER MONTH.
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
Plug and chug, the numbers are right there for you to look at.
Response to Zalatix (Reply #47)
jeff47 This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)Fuck em is not the attitude of any intent to actually help anyone but yourself.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)hearing the GOP talk, they made it sound like the ACA would force the entire country into a govt healthcare plan. It's only about 5% of the Nation.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)I am no longer responsible for picking up the tab for those that can afford to purchase insurance, but instead decide to stick the rest of us with the bill through higher health insurance premiums.
Refuse to be responsible for yourself and your famiyl's health care, even when you can afford it?
OK.
Pay up, freeloader.
awwwsheet
(21 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Love how the Republican memes come out when the subject of ACA is brought up...
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Those that cann afford to pay, but REFUSE TO, and stick you, me, and everyone else with their bill is coming to an end.
Unless you sympathize with freeloaders, this is a good thing.
Everyone needs to be a responsible citizen with regards to their health care now.
Those that need subsidies will get them.
Those that can pay but won't, will get a bill.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Those earning $20K a year will get a bill. A nasty one, in fact.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)A nasty bill, indeed.
Refusing to take responsibility for your own health care choices now has consequences, and it will from here on out, even when we finally move to single payer.
That money will be paid, either in the form of taxes, or premiums...but it will be paid.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)So not only are you hoping to condemn a poor person earning $20K a year to choosing between their premium payment and FOOD, but they're at risk for a monster medical bill REGARDLESS.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
Patients Whose Illness Contributed to Bankruptcy
Telephone interviews identified 639 patients whose illness contributed to bankruptcy: the debtor or spouse in 77.9% of cases; a child in 14.6%; and a parent, sibling or other adult in 7.5%. At illness onset, 77.9% were insured: 60.3% had private insurance as their primary coverage; 10.2% had Medicare; 5.4% had Medicaid; and 2% had Veterans Affairs/military coverage. Few of the uninsured lacked coverage because of a preexisting condition (2.8%) or belief that coverage was unnecessary (0.3%); nearly all cited economic reasons.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance." Health.com: Where the money goes -- A breast cancer donation guide
Smooth move there.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You realize that the ACA puts an end to those scenarios you quoted, right?
You really don't understand one thing it changed, you're just against it, period.
Got it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'm against Individual Mandates which is a huge Corporate giveaway. The coverage limits isn't the only problem, it's also the copays and deductibles. I've got a policy with copays that a $20K a year person wouldn't want. And if it's grandfathered, the ACA doesn't do away with that. You'd know that if you read it.
And I'd like to see what that cap is that the ACA puts on normal plans for non-preventative care co-pays and deductibles.
But none of that is going to matter worth a damn if you have to turn off your electrical service to pay that extra $85 a month highway robbery that you want a $20K a year worker to pay.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)When people don't pay up, they're assessed a tax penalty. That money doesn't go directly to pay for health care reform, it goes into the general fund. And when they get sick, they still go to the ER.
People who claim to know so much about the ACA actually don't know squat.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Fuck them, too?
BTW you've got someone like that right here in this thread.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)When they then fall seriously ill, where will they find a couple of hundred thousand dollars to pay that bill?
Makes $80 a month look like chump change.
Libertarians seem to hate this the most, they want to still be able to game the system then dump their health care bills on other people.
You realize that if there was Single Payer run by the government, that $80 would most likely be taken out of their pay in taxation in order to help pay for health care, right?
The citizens of this nation will pay for their own health care, in one way or another.
Make the decision, one way or another, but it will cost you no matter what.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You must think that 20K a year is Mitt Romney level rich or something.
And if we had a Single Payer system it would
a) be likely taken from higher taxes on the rich (as it should be);
b) most certainly be FAR LOWER than $80 a month (given the same level of coverage) because Medicare-for-All is a nationwide insurance pool which means it's more efficient.
I'm not sure where you can make the case where the working poor AREN'T getting stung by these increased costs.
Perhaps you should try living on 20K a year while adding a $80 monthly bill to your budget. How do you like cat food?
BTW the health insurance corporations who benefit for this guaranteed customer pool give their sincere thanks, along with Mitt Romney who first passed this mandatory health insurance law for all citizens in MA and the Heritage Foundation who first proposed the idea. Ummm, exactly at what point did liberals take the baton for this...?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)It makes you look even more foolish than you are.
There were times when my choices were to spend the last ten dollars I had on gas for my car to get to work, or food for my kids.
I walked.
So kindly kiss off.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)$20,000 is barely above CA minimum wage. And you want to add a $80 a month extra expense to the life of someone making that paltry amount of money?
You are totally lacking in empathy. So why don't YOU kiss off.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Got over 19K the next year.
You're making a fool of yourself, but I won't stop you.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The cost of living has gone WAY up since then. Starting with but not ending with the gasoline you'd use to get to work.
Now tell us how you'd walk 20 miles to work. Go ahead.
Seriously. THINK!
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I did. Actually $19883. Monthly health-insurance from a public facing position in one of the few fields where you can be compelled to have insurance: $92.
I did it. I did it living inside Washington DC which is one of the most-expensive cities in the United States to live in. I kvetched about it constantly but ultimately I'm glad I did it because I really enjoyed having health insurance when I went into shock at work, passed out, hit my head and ended up in Howard Medical Center. Mostly, I enjoyed knowing Aetna was paying $17000 for 2 days worth of in-patient tests and treatment and I wasn't.
There was also the Achilles rupture that I didn't have to pay for. (Except the $1500 yearly-deductible.)
Also, my asthma medication, my SSRIs, my epi-pen.
My only regret is that I never got around to having my ankle fixed...it needs a joint-replacement.
$92/mo. = best expenditure I ever made.
Yay! 
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)There's no way you can make it on that budget adding $80 worth of expenses. You have to beg for food on that budget.
It ain't happening. Plus if you get some major illness you're STILL on the hook for thousands.
You're condemning the poor to insolvency with right wing talking points.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)will only be paid for by the rich. Yes, the rich need to pay higher taxes, but it still won't be enough to cover single payer for everyone in the country.
Single payer, if it ever happens, will work like Medicare does now, IMO. Everyone that works will pay a payroll tax and there will be monthly premiums, most likely on a sliding scale, with only the very poorest paying no premium.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The fallout from adding this kind of burden to the working poor will be utterly disastrous.
I don't know where you get this idea where the rich have so little money but I'm sure they're glad to hear so many violins playing for them.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I've not seen a single person say that the rich shouldn't be taxed more than they are now. But that still is.n't going to be enough to pay for single payer for everyone in the country.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)There is no govt ins. program, except Medicare and Medicaid, which already exist, and no one forces the participants into it. The participants seek it out, grateful it's there.
awwwsheet
(21 posts)Cant wait for the rest of season 5 to come out!!! 
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Go away.
IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ
(452 posts)A close relative of mine is in this situation. His disability premiums were paid with after-tax dollars because he was a 1099 independent contractor, and thus under IRS rules, the disability benefits are not taxable. I'm talking about $140k of annual income that is not subject to either federal or state taxes, currently. Will this money count toward expected income if it's not subject to IRS taxation?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,464 posts)don't buy into the spin.
