General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThey just said a short while ago if you did not take the insurance the
penalty would be having to pay more when you get it. Spacer just said you are not forced to get insurance...well, that sounds like a forcing you to get it to me. You can not afford it now and you sure as hell are not going to be able to afford it later.
sunonmars
(8,656 posts)Doreen
(11,686 posts)It is criminal.
sunonmars
(8,656 posts)It takes the vulnerable and ruins them with debt....kind of like the GOP plan.
unblock
(52,126 posts)even when aca was originally passed, i said they could have kept the exact same financial features, but instead of calling it a "mandate" where you have to buy insurance or else pay a "penalty", they could have called it a "tax hike" where you get an refundable "tax credit" if you buy insurance.
mathematically equivalent, but avoids the "mandate" term.
of course, there's also room to slightly tweak it to disguise it further, but yeah, it's a mandate by any other name. an inducement to buy.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in coverage for some reason. Like from being broke after losing a job. The 30% does not go into the common till to pay for the healthcare program but is instead profit for the insurance companies.
It would, of course, encourage younger, healthier people to delay purchasing new coverage for some while, even years, while those who are sick would be forced to somehow ante up, thus contributing to funding problems.
It's also just ONE of the first steps in dismantling national healthcare altogether. More to come in following months.
FSogol
(45,452 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)ultimately pay his or her own way or die, a brutal way to what he imagines would be a healthier, more vigorous and worthy society. Without all those worthless, no-longer-productive retired moochers around.
Very stupid imagining. Libertarianism always loses to strongly conservative or even fascistic authoritarian rule. And some of us actually like being part of multigenerational families and taking the new babies over to visit elderly neighbors.
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)of a maximum monthly unemployment check.
Phoenix61
(16,993 posts)It's a law that allows you to purchase medical insurance through your former employer for up to 18 months. Pre ACA it was a way to maintain coverage until you could get another job and pick up coverage there. My 18 months ends in August. Not sure what will be available then.
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)Just keep your coverage. No assistance until you are penniless. We had a few sleepless nights
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)a subcontractor at JPL to being an employee, not a day lost from work or of insurance coverage, but it triggered a COBRA letter: We should immediately mail our check for $2,999 for the next 3 months' coverage in order to continue coverage at all.
Horrified isn't the word on reading this as I wondered how many people facing loss of their income, especially young families without assets, would not be able to meet it and also keep the power on, and the children fed, and...
Ms. Toad
(33,999 posts)I might risk a 30% hit for a year if I don't normally use insurance. Are you sure it's only a year?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Medicare Plan A is premium free, but has high deduct if you need hospitalization.
Plan B is for "outpatient" which is essentially all Dr. visits outside of a hospital, all lab work, in or out of a hospital.
If you do not sign onto Plan B when you turn 65 ( currently) you pay more for all future Plan B monthly premiums..
10 % if you sign on at age 66
15$ at age 67..( I think it is 15%....I KNOW it is 10% for age 66)
Meanwhile, the monthly premiums for the non-rich have stayed pretty low cause Soc. Sec. increases have been low t non-existent for teh past few years, and the premiums cannot cause a decrease in your Soc. Sec. income if you are in a lower tax bracket.
thus the ACA was a ripoff to the extent it allowed hellishly high premium increases.
doc03
(35,299 posts)very little on meds but if you don't sign up now and need the coverage later premiums would be much higher.
Ms. Toad
(33,999 posts)There is a significant difference in cost.
moonscape
(4,673 posts)for every month you go without coverage. For life. So, 12% additional in premiums every year you don't have it.
The monthly premiums are so low for the cheapest plans, that it seems fair. Each year during open enrollment you can switch to another plan. Otherwise, people would just sign up when they started needing medication.
Also, those with very low income can get premium assistance.
Ms. Toad
(33,999 posts)for people who can't afford health insurance in the first place.
moonscape
(4,673 posts)FSogol
(45,452 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,999 posts)it's an ongoing surcharge once you ultimately need health insurance that is far larger than the tax penalty would have been for not carrying insurance in the first place.
But yes, it penalizes people who have to choose between food and health insurance by boosting their insurance premiums by 30% once they return to the fold.
Delmette2.0
(4,157 posts)At least that will help offset the subsidy that someone else received.
I couldn't see paying an insurance company over $6,000 a year for premiums then $6,000 in deductibles before they would kick in 70%. I have six more months before I qualify for Medicare....if that still exists by then.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)We all know that they are going to screw Soc-Sec and Medicare also. If you listen the dictator said "he" was not going to mess with it but he has a bunch of people in his cabinet that will.
Delmette2.0
(4,157 posts)I'm eligible just in time to see it deminished.
Fuck 45, Fuck the GOP
Hang in there maybe this can be salvaged before any damage is done.....like impeaching him.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)This sucks on so many levels and I mean very many levels.
Delmette2.0
(4,157 posts)Motownman78
(491 posts)Until you are like me last week. There I was just sitting at home and BAM, a MRSA infection and major surgery to remove it. Oh, and I was in the hospital for 3 full days. Thank goodness I have health insurance so I didn't have to pay $35,000.
Delmette2.0
(4,157 posts)I am lucky to have had just a couple minor problems. I just dislike the health insurance industry and I am willing to take my chances. I have always been for Medicare for All. I know we will all pay something but at least it won't line the pockets of CEO's, COO's,CFO's.
I hope you are recovered and doing well.
dalton99a
(81,404 posts)roamer65
(36,744 posts)applegrove
(118,499 posts)Like everything GOP policy, it is designed to collapse.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)in a two bedroom apartment with 5 other people and is working at McDonalds on minimum wage can afford health care.
applegrove
(118,499 posts)since robots and algorithms will have taken all the skilled and semi-skilled jobs. And if they finally do get enough in wages to pay for insurance one day they have a huge penalty to pay.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)What if the parents never had them on a plan because they did not have a plan themselves?
They are going by the assumption that the parents can afford them.
I fear one of the things they may try in the future is that parents by law have to have their kids insured whether they can afford it or not or they will be fined or put in jail.
applegrove
(118,499 posts)spiral at the same time.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)It might be a little longer but not to much longer.
applegrove
(118,499 posts)Doreen
(11,686 posts)damage to repair and I do not know if we will be able to fix it. One of the things that scares me though is dictator succeeding in taking the vote away period. Yeah, I know it is not legal but how much has he done that is legal?