Do I understand this correct?

[mdmc]

In general, full-time employees with employer coverage available that meets specified requirements are not eligible for premium subsidies, unless the employee would have to pay more than 9.8% of income for the employer-provided coverage.

So I spend .05% of my income on my "health insurance".
I spend .10% of my income on "medical treatment" (co-payments, medications, and things that are not covered by my health insurance).

So I spend 15% of my income on "medical care".
But I only spend 5% on my "employer-provider coverage".

So while I spend a great deal more on medical care then 9.8%, I will not be eligible for any assistance.
So I will continue to have full medical health "insurance", but will continue to not be able to afford medical health "treatment". And this bill (as of right now) will not help me in the least - in fact it will make my treatment even more expensive.

[FBaggins]

1. Sounds about right. n/t

[Jim__]

2. It depends on what the specified requirements are.

If you're spending 10% of your income on medical care, that may be (partially) because your employer coverage does not meet the specified requirements. Do you know what the specified requirements are? I read it once, but I haven't re-read it recently.

[mdmc]

8. I am very ill my friend

So my expenses are pretty high. My condition will eventually disable me, thus qualifying my for medical coverage:eyes:

[MNDemNY]

3. Ding-ding-ding...you are correct.

But think of the VICTORY won't thee Rose Garden Bill signing be wonderful??

[Frosty1]

7. OK so you know for a fact that this is correct?

Where did you find it?
Link please. I've been looking for the answer to this.

[Goldstein1984]

4. What did you expect from

a committee made up entirely of politicians?

Especially when the politicians have a private clinic and a single-payer health plan.

[Greyhound]

5. You didn't expect that they would make it easier for you, did you?

This bill, were it to fall under truth in advertising laws, would have to be named "The Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act".

It's all about forcing everyone to finance their own murder, one of the reich-wing's favorite tactics.

[Frosty1]

10. "Finance their own murder"?

That would make a good right-wing talking point. I'll bet you could sell that to Rush or Sarah.

[Greyhound]

16. Have you ever been sick?

Most of you that are so gung-ho over this POS think you have "coverage" when all you really have is a payment.

So call me "right-wing" all you like, you're still a sucker being conned.

[Frosty1]

19. There are some 30 or so million people

out here with NO INSURANCE I'm sure many of them are sick.
Have I ever been sick you ask>

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Oh you silly silly man.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. I think you are onto the crux of the issue.

I don't see this bill preventing medical bankruptcies because some of the co-pay, deductable examples I have seen are STILL out of peoples' grasp. I don't understand why people are not seeing this. If you have $3 to spend on lunch and the old cafeteria charged $10 and the new cafeteria charges $6, it's all very well there was a price decrease, but STILL NO LUNCH FOR YOU. It doesn't matter how much the miss is, an inch or a mile, it's still a miss that will continue to drive people into bankruptcy if someone has the bad judgment and lack of foresight to require actual treatment.

[mdmc]

9. thanks for the reply

[TheKentuckian]

13. Nah, they changed the bankruptcy laws a few years back

Most people won't generate enough to be allowed to file but will have a burden they can't bear. It won't create bankruptcy just bad credit, debt, and poverty.

[bain_sidhe]

11. There are a lot of things I don't like about these bills, but

I think there IS an out-of-pocket cap in at least one of them. Whether it makes it into the final bill is a question, of course. But, IF I understand what's on offer correctly, there's a cap on how much you pay in both premiums AND co-pays. It's just a very high cap, so it might not help you.

I shall investigate later, as I'm on my way to lunch right now. I just posted so that I could find this thread again.

[mdmc]

12. Even if it is $15,000 it could help me

If I knew that there was an end to their rape, I could suck it up, pay their ransom, and get the treatment that I need.
Without treatment I will (80% chance) be disabled within 5 years.

If I could receive medical treatment, I can avoid becoming disabled. I could avoid being unemployed. Avoid being on welfare, avoid being on socialized medicine.

I am in a lot of pain, and try to get what treatment I can afford. I have full medical coverage, but cannot afford to utilize it.

[TheKentuckian]

14. I hope it helps you and don't take my ever increasing hatred of this travesty personally

I just see the whole thing as becoming a monster at least as bad as the one we have now.

[mdmc]

18. Well, all this bill will do for me (so far) is cause me to be able to

afford less treatment then I can currently afford.

Again, I work 50 hours per week, earn $35,500 per year, and cannot afford my medical co-payments.
I am fully insured, but cannot access medical treatment due to the out of pocket expenses.

[bain_sidhe]

21. Sorry that I did not get back yesterday

...crazy day. But I see that Ticketyboo took up the challenge and found an article that answers part of your question:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/healthprofiles_12-04.html

From the article:

As for Schiff's deductibles and co-pays, both the Senate and the House bills put limits on the out-of-pocket costs that insurance plans would be allowed to impose on people with employer coverage. However, those limits are similar to what Schiff is paying now -- under the House bill, it's a $5,000 per year limit on deductibles and co-pays for individuals, and $10,000 for families. In the Senate bill the out-of-pocket limits are pegged to the limits of current high-deductible Health Savings Account plans, which in 2009 were $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families.

Those out-of-pocket limits are lowered on a sliding scale for people with incomes below 400 percent of the poverty level. Schiff's income is right on the border of that 400 percent cutoff for a family of three, so depending on slight fluctuations in her income she might or might not qualify for the reduced out-of-pocket limit.

This doesn't address the premiums, though. I don't see anything about limiting the percentage of income a premium can be, but the premiums are the same for everyone - community rating - not based on your medical history, so that should help some.

[winyanstaz]

15. yup and if you dont buy it..you pay a fine....

[laughingliberal]

17. Correct nt

[TicketyBoo]

20. Maybe this article will help answer some questions

that I see cropping up here.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/healthprofiles_12-04.html

It's pretty hard to say how any certain individual will be affected, especially since we don't know what the final legislation will look like.