still absurdly low. I'd save a crapload a year by just paying the penalty and waiting to see if anyone gets sick. hell my self employment tax just by itself on my healthcare premiums is $800 this year. Also SHOCKINGLY the people who by and large have signed up for obamacare are the people who are getting subsidized. glad we are saving so much money as Obama promised. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insu...percent-over-2014-fee/ar-AAazVPp?ocid=U142DHP The fee for not having health insurance coverage in 2015 will increase to 2% of your annual household income or up to $975 per family, $325 per adult and $162.50 for each child under the age of 18 years, whichever is higher. Enrollment at exchanges using HealthCare.gov were at 76% of eligible individuals whose incomes were between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) but dropped to 30% of individuals whose FPL was between 201% and 250% and sunk down to 2% of individuals whose annual incomes were over 400% of the FPL.
is 2% of household income the max or $975? the article makes it confusing. if it's $975 I'd save a hell of a lot more than $4k . I'm seriously thinking about doing it now. no joke. I already pay almost everything out of pocket for my kids doctors visits anyway.
If there's one way to aide the poverty-stricken in securing insurance, it's in penalizing them with fines, and thus, further reducing their ability to afford it. Perhaps their is a federal program that was so poorly conceived, deceptively described, and which causes more direct and definitive harm to do many - particularly to those who it aims to help - than the Affordable Care Act, but damned if I can think of it.
It has some serious problems, but as a whole Americans are better off now than they were before it. Flame away.
I don't see how you could possibly say that. people who already had insurance saw their premiums or deductibles go significantly up. I'm not sure how americans as a whole are better off if 90% are paying more with only a small percentage benefiting. spock would be very upset with your analysis.
I deal with people everyday that are effected by their hours being cut. Premiums have increased and drug formularies have increased. Plus deductibles and coverage gaps forced to pay at the first of the year. Plus EHR has added to the cost of healthcare which is pushed onto the consumers.
He's trolling. It's indefensible, and he knows it. 1. Make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for previous conditions. 2. Remove the restrictions which prohibit the interstate competition of insurance companies. 3. Require insurance companies to accept reduced rates for coverage of indigent persons, as a requirement of continuing to receive Medicare / Medicaid. Problem solved. Or, do the crazy shit that President Obama did with the ACA, harm those it's intended to help, and exponentially further enrich and protect those who are most directly responsible for this mess, to begin with - namely, the insurance companies. Healthcare is now worse in the U.S. and those in poverty are now even less capable of securing health insurance than before the ACA. The program succeeds in that it will serve as a recent and entirely apt example of the dual dangers of allowing the government to "fix" something, and of electing the indefensibly moronic (good intentions, aside).
It isn't the most elegant solution in the world. I can agree with this. I don't have serious beef, though, with the general idea behind the legislation. I've always thought that the for-profit health insurance is just a business model that would never end well. And this is especially true when the reality of the marketplace is that it doesn't exist. In the large majority of instances, consumers had about as much choice over who their health care insurance provider would be as they did over who they'd buy cable service from. Just break down the what is actually happening when you buy health insurance. It's really easy and really ridiculous. You and many others are paying $100 a month for coverage (we'll use that number for convenience). The company receives that money and then distributes it to others, as required. But this is a for-profit company, and so by definition, the goal of that company is maximize the difference between what it is receiving from you, and what it is paying back out. Insurance companies are like a poker rake at the casino, except that the casino is at least providing a service.* Moreover, the casino has a competing casino next door, and so they can't get greedy on the rake or you'll go to the poker room at the next building over. Health Insurance companies have never really had a casino right next door keeping them honest. They'll keep increasing the amount they skim off the top in the name of profits, and the end result is that YOU -- and, yes, it's that easy to conceptualize -- are paying $100 to your health insurance company and in exchange you get $75 worth of health care. And the business model always always comes down to that. It's really that simple. And who thinks that's a good idea? I mean, I don't believe in insurance as a general matter, but even if you did, would you still be cool making that trade? Would you still think it made sense to trade a crisp benjamin for a $75 prescription? *In other words, you at least get to have fun playing poker while the money is being redistributed (after being skimmed off the top).
It will only serve as an example if it's repealed. Do you think that's gonna happen? Honest question...I really don't have any idea.
Comparing the experience of those living in states that cooperated with the program with the experiences of those who do not live in such states is perhaps a part of the issue here. The governor of Tennessee wanted Obamacare to fail and so for his fellow Tennesseans it has. Congrats! Another part of the issue is how much value you place on giving poor individuals access to affordable health care. If you don't think they matter, just own it. If you don't like gaps in coverage, write your governor and tell him to participate in the program to help close them. Again, it is far from perfect, but it is better than nothing.
Great moralarity card. If only we had more regulation and governmental control over healthcare market, it'd be super cheap and accessible. Small private health care facilities would keep shrinking as the cost increases while larger hospital groups buy them up increasing the cost for everyone
1. I don't think the GOP is serious about repealing it. Limiting it somehow, maybe, but no repeal. 2. I think everyone feels like the case heading to SCOTUS (basically, saying that only those citizens of those states who participated are eligible for incentive money), will tell the tale. If they strike those entitlements, it won't matter who is for or against it, it will collapse onto itself, almost overnight.
The longer the ACA goes into form, and the it's effects become increasingly obvious, you may want to abandon the idea of the masses rallying to save it. I don't have any recent poll data at hand, but last I saw, the overwhelming majority of Americans were strongly against it.
Didn't the poor just go to the free clinic or the ER and tell the hospital to eat a bag of ****s when they sent a bill? How were they not getting affordable coverage? It was already free
Difference between ER visits and preventative care. Not saying I am happy with obamacare. I think it sucks a big bag of fresh dung. Thrown together ad hoc, no rhyme and nothing was fixed.
