No one will have to pay more than 8% of their income for health insurance... ~ David Alelrod on MTP

[mzmolly]

He noted a 'hardship exemption' that would prevent consumers from having to pay greater than 8% of their income for health care.

Here is the video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34498920#34498901

The remarks in this regard begin about one minute into the conversation.

I do agree with Dean that the bill should be improved, but I find that tidbit from Axelrod worth sharing.

Edited to clarify, it seems the 8% cap may merely exempt you from any mandate? If anyone has more info, it would be appreciated.

[Marr]

1. No one will have to pay more than 8% of their income for an invisible product they

don't use. So there's the insurance side.

If you want *healthcare*, it's 8% of your income plus... whatever the insurance companies decide.

[mzmolly]

2. Huh?

;)

[grytpype]

24. What?

[tranche]

78. Please seek help

[Toasterlad]

111. Your Failure To Understand the Poster Does Not Indicate a Problem On His End.

He's saying that you have to pay the 8% of you income for health insurance, whether you get sick or not. If you DO get sick, you have to pay the 8% plus whatever the insurance company requires you to pay for treatment.

In other words, you're paying 8% of your income for the privilege of being allowed to pay for medical treatment, should you need it.

His post was perfectly clear.

[Marr]

114. Thank you. n/t

[Toasterlad]

118. .

:hi:

[Fire1]

125. That's a helluva lot better that 17%! n/t

[Toasterlad]

131. I Don't Believe the Majority of Americans Are Paying 17% of Their Income On Health Insurance.

[Fire1]

134. I am referring to the family of four scenario making 54k a year

who "supposedly" would be paying 17% of their income for coverage. The chart and article was posted here this past week.

[grasswire]

3. I already pay more than 8 percent

Will I get a rate reduction?

[napi21]

13. As I understand it, YES. n/t

[madfloridian]

30. Could you link to your source for that thought?

Because I doubt anyone will getting rate decreases.

[napi21]

50. The only link I can find is old (Nov. 09) so the #'s are diff. but

this is still the process as I understand it.

Under the bill, families and individuals with incomes between 133 and 400 percent of the poverty line (between $24,350 and $73,240 for a family of three in 2009) would receive premium credits to help offset the cost of insurance premiums for coverage they purchase in the new health insurance exchanges. The amounts these households would have to pay for premiums would be based on a sliding scale, under which households’ premium contributions would be set at 4 percent of income for households at 134 percent of the poverty line and would rise to 9.8 percent of income for those at 300 percent of the poverty line. The maximum amount that households would be required to pay would remain at 9.8 percent of income for those with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line.<1>

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3004



The clip I used is shown under the title "What low to Moderate income hosholds would pay for premiums.

[madfloridian]

58. Teachers in our area are paying about thousand a month for family care.

I have retired and won't quote the average salary, but it is unlikely they would qualify for hardship.

[WolverineDG]

72. If they really want to help more people

they will raise the poverty guidelines. The limits are a joke.

dg

[salin]

14. Nearly double 8%

doubt we will get a reduction.

[G_j]

16. as do millions of people, I would guess

good question

[MineralMan]

52. You should, when the measure kicks in.

[DJ13]

4. So they can just do without instead of crafting a deal to provide affordability?

Thats awful nice of them.

[laughingliberal]

5. Lol. If you like what you have (nothing) you can keep it. nt

[DJ13]

If you're offering the choice between nothing and expensive wheres the reform?

[laughingliberal]

38. Same damned choice many have now-your money or your life nt

[mzmolly]

18. LOL

Sadly funny.

[mzmolly]

7. I hope not.

:shrug:

[libertypirate]

6. The insurance company stock prices have soared. This bill

protects profits make no mistake about it. The fascist corporate DINO brigade running the White House is trying to polish a turd! While it is possible to polish a turd you are still working with shit and the shit may shine but it is still shit!

I hired a community organizer not a corporate whore.

[polpilot]

15. Not a corporate whore?? Now that's not nice. Play nice and maybe the repubs will help us.

Pretty please??

[ima_sinnic]

149. he's a "community organizer" all right---just didn't say which "community" he'd be "organizing"

isn't it great the poor widdle underpwivileged insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, war-profiteering weapons manufacturers, wealthy bankers, and other haves-and-have-mores now have somebody going to bat for them, looking out for them, advocating for them, even including them in his administration and making sure they receive every penny of welfare and public assistance they are entitled to?

[Warpy]

8. It would have been 60% of my income 15 years ago

for what was basically a glorified accident policy. Since I didn't fancy living under a bridge, I turned them down. Now they won't write even that much.

Likely the bill will be improved when they have to fight it out with the House.

We'll see if the insurance companies actually have to cover pre existing conditions or if they just have to write policies that exempt them. If it's the latter case, I'll be a scofflaw.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. If that is the case, they need to get that knowlege out there pronto!

I already stated in a post that got dropped like a rock that they needed to get out in front and start with a very aggressive campaign about what is good in this bill. I have NEVER heard anyone say what he just said and that would turn the tide for a lot of folks.

edit - wait a minute. Does he means premiums alone? Or is that Premiums, deductables and co-pays combined? One is great, one is not that great.

[pscot]

83. At this point most of the talk

is based on fearful rumors and speculation. If the bill is the horror people are saying it is, there will be a firestorm of public outrage. While I have minimum high regard for the collective intelligence of the Congress, I trust their instinct for self preservation. Would they actually write a bill that gets them tossed? I don't know. Maybe they're even dumber than I think they are. I'm also encouraged by the determined opposition of the NOPers. If they hate it this much, it must have signicant redeeming virtues. We'll know soon enough.

[Abq_Sarah]

146. Premiums

You pay the 8% for the privilege of having insurance. If you actually use it, the additional costs are on you.

[polpilot]

10. A bill written by and for THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Get it?

[mzmolly]

12. Do you have more info

on that assertion?

[Cleita]

34. I do.

Remember the public option? It doesn't exist anymore. It seems this bill only covers the private sector insurance companies. Go read it. It's on line.

[mzmolly]

45. That's not pertinent to the point

that was made. Also the public option remains in the house bill, so we may end up with something in this regard after committee? We'll have to wait and see.

[Cleita]

54. Excuse me but the public option in the House bill is a fig leaf and there is

no public there or ability to ask for Medicare or Medicaid if you want to buy into it and can't qualify for either program. You won't end up with a public option no matter what they call it. For it to be a real public option, it has to be public (a government run health care program) and it has to be an option ( you may choose it, no matter what your financial or health status is).

[mzmolly]

67. Again, your point

did not answer my question to the party I was speaking to.

I agree with you on the desire for a public option.

[Cleita]

75. Well it did, but if you can't see it then there is no point in my continuing this. eom

[polpilot]

41. Are you kidding??

[mzmolly]

44. No.

I'm not.

[polpilot]

51. You're O.K. with Obama's leadership on healthcare reform?

[mzmolly]

69. Yes. We are about to have Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson and

others vote for comprehensive health care reform. That is an accomplishment.

I just got an email from Barbara Boxer which states:

There are so many good things in this bill, even though I surely wanted it to be better. But, at the end of the day, this is still a very good bill -- and the most significant reform of America's broken health care system since Medicare was enacted in 1965.

Among other things, the bill would:

* Extend health insurance coverage to 31 million more Americans, including 14 million lower-income, working people through Medicaid
* Prohibit insurance company discrimination based on gender or pre-existing condition -- and make sure you can't lose your insurance when you get sick
* End the upward, unsustainable increases in insurance premiums
* Increase funding for community health centers in 10,000 communities across the country, enhancing primary care for more than 25 million people who have traditionally been uninsured or underinsured
* Close the prescription drug "doughnut hole" for seniors
* Require insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their income on patient care, not executive pay or profits
* Cut the federal deficit by $132 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

We can't let this opportunity pass us by. That's why I'm going to keep fighting for the very best health care reform bill we can get -- while defending women's reproductive health -- and then work as hard as I can to get it passed and signed into law

[polpilot]

104. This needs to be forwarded to Howard Dean IMMEDIATELY.

Apparently he doesn't understand this 'good' stuff. Those insurance companies are TOAST!

[mzmolly]

124. Dean is trying to strengthen the bill. And when he ultimately supports it

remember you heard it HERE first. :hi:

[eridani]

145. Make older people not old enough for Medicare into second class citizens

There is no reason why Medicaid expansion or closing the donut hole requires any new legislationa at all. And there is no reason to tie community clinic subsidies to shitty mandatory underinsurance.

[optimator]

11. a mugger puts a gun to your head and says he only want 8% of your wallet

theft is theft

[Unvanguard]

19. You can pay less than half that if you'd rather pay the penalty.

But most people, unsurprisingly, would probably rather get actual insurance.

[Abq_Sarah]

147. I'm sure they would

But if they can't afford it now, what on earth makes Axelrod think they're going to magically be able to afford it tomorrow? Oh, sure.. he talks about tax credits but uh.. you have to have the money up front to pay for an item before you're able to claim it on your taxes and tax credits only "reimburse" you for a small percentage of the money spent.

This mandate stuff is ugly and the repercussions may well be disastrous for us.

[napi21]

36. If you on'tt want ins. do you also want to be left to suffer and die?

All his griping and growling from people who apparently feel ivinceable. If suddenly you get hurt in an accident or get a headache that won't go away that turns into brain cancer, who do you expect is going to pay for your treatment and care?

I have homeowners ins. I don't HAVE TO because my house is paid for, but I have it because IF, and I happen to think it won't happen, but IF it catches fire, or is destroyed by a hurricane, I want to know it can be fixed or replaced. I'm retired & sure can't go build another one myself!

Don't ever think IT CAN'T HAPPEN TO ME! A young fella 3 houses up the road from me, age 19, was attending college, playing on the baskeball team, and generlly living a good life. One day he told his parents he had this pain that wouldn't go away. After tests, it turned out he had cancer. He died 6 months later! Yes he had ins under his parents plan, but he nor they ever thought something that awful could have happened to them either!

[Edweird]

136. You're missing the point completely. Everybody needs healthcare.

The problem is the fact that the very entities for making our 'health care' system so abysmal are now quasi-government agencies - with shareholders and ceo's making 10's of millions a year. They are still motivated by profit to find every loophole and excuse to deny you care. The solution to a problem is not MORE of what caused it.

I, personally, would LOVE for us to adopt the Canadian model. I suspect that many others who share my apprehension of this awful piece of legislation feel similarly.

[Xipe Totec]

17. Cheaper than tithing, but not much

I guess insurance companies are the new churches.

[Joe Bacon]

20. Wait for the Supreme Court to gut this further

After Roberts and his Federalist pals strip this bill, the only thing left will be the mandates. Watch the fun that ensues from that!

[Thickasabrick]

132. People are waiting for the bill to pass to form a Class Action because

of the Mandates...that is what they see as unconstitutional.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Your assertion is that poor people are never ever victimized?

No other nation on earth allows for the making of a profit by delivery of basic health care. To profit from it is a crime. To mandate everyone to contribute to private profits is simply wrong. It is theft. And it is wrong.
The fact that you find it necessary to make silly assertions and hurl epithets gives emphasis to the weakness of your position. The truth stands without name calling, without insults.

[yodoobo]

22. This is really a good deal for everyone

Insurance nowdays usually cost FAR more than 8%, especially those with low income. In fact this will reduce my insurance cost significantly.

Its probably best to think of this as a tax rather than a premium.

Just like we all pay SSN and enjoy the benefits, this will be the same.

I'm not exactly happy with the bill, it could be better, but its far better than nothing and far better than what McCain would have done.

In fact its likely that McCain would have done nothing at all.

[madfloridian]

32. Hardship exemption does not include middle class

[mzmolly]

35. Do you have more info

on this Mad?

[madfloridian]

49. Here's some info...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/18/hardship-wavier-and-restrictions-on-immigrants-buying-insurance-undercut-arguments-for-an-individual-mandate/

" The Senate bill completely fails to hold up its end of this social contract, and that is made clear by its i inclusion of “hardship” waivers.

Any person can get an exemption from the individual mandate if the cost of premiums exceeds 8% of his or her income. A properly working universal health care system does not have a “hardship” exemption. Instead of the government saying, “we will not force you to buy health insurance anymore because we let the insurance companies make it too expensive for you,” the proper response is for the government to say, “If your insurance ever starts to get too expensive, we will make sure you can afford it.”

It is the height of irony that the hardship waiver is for people whose premiums exceed 8% of their income, but for people making between 300-400% of FPL, the tax credits they get will only be sufficient to make the silver plan cost 9.8% of their income. One part of the bill is saying that spending 8% of your income on insurance is a hardship, and another part of the bill is only giving people enough affordability tax credits to make insurance cost 9.8% of their income. The “silver level” plans have a very low actuarial value 70%, and people would have the option of choosing the super-junk 60% actuarial value “bronze level” plans. So, the people between 300% and 400% FPL might technically have an option that will just barely cost just under 8% of their income, but it will be for nearly worthless junk insurance."

I did not save the other links, but will look for them later.

[mzmolly]

73. I agree with the points made

if true. Though I wonder what is meant by 'worthless junk' insurance?

Thanks for the info.

[ixion]

23. okay, I'm paying less than 1% now... so how is 8 times that

better for me?

It's not. It's freakin' highway robbery.

[mzmolly]

28. He's not saying you'll have to pay a minimum of 8%.

:hi:

[ixion]

31. perhaps not, but my feeling is that it will cost me more

for something I don't use. :hi:

[mzmolly]

84. Don't think so.

;)

[ixion]

85. uh-huh, we shall see

history is not on your side, though. ;)

[polpilot]

53. I'll write anyone on this board a policy for 1% of their net income.

Just let ME write the policy. JEEEEZUSSS CHRISTTT>>>>Wake up.

[mzmolly]

76. Ah

what? Our family already pays about 8 or 9% of our income for health insurance. When my diabetic husband was in his twenties he couldn't even get health insurance for a time. And, when he was finally offered a premium for catastrophic coverage alone, he was told it would cost HALF of his pay.

[polpilot]

117. So my 1% 'policy' is a good deal. It doesn't cover a lot of things though...like

illness or healthcare on days that start with an 's' or m, or t, or w, or f. And there are some upfront fees and administration costs for things like reading a letter or answering the phone, and then our claims office in Peru only accepts walk-ins on Thurdays after 2 p.m and before 1 p.m. o.k. My point is, when you play the 'health insurance' game you lose. 8%, 3%, 1%, 12%, it doesn't matter at all, they are the 'gatekeepers' and you won't get in.

[mzmolly]

122. More cryptic

nonsense.

[Greyhound]

106. What country do you live in?

Of course it will become 8% minimum, and that will then be followed by consistent creep in the min/max percentage and the inevitable "adjustments to income calculations" as each successive election yield more and more politicians that dare not oppose the insurance industry.

And the beat goes on.

[mzmolly]

123. I don't know of any health insurance

companies who ask info about income so they can charge the max.

[Greyhound]

130. Because participation is not yet mandated by law. This "reform" is creating

another monstrosity that will serve no one but the insurance companies. And when it happens it won't be anything as open as a declaration of a minimum percentage of income.

Soon we'll get the opt-out self insured scam for the über-wealthy...

[subterranean]

43. It doesn't mean EVERYONE will have to pay 8%.

I don't know your situation, but if you're paying 1% of your income now (presumably because your employer pays the rest), the reforms will not change that. Unless, of course, your employer suddenly announces they're not going to cover your health care costs anymore.

If you're paying less than 1% now because you don't have insurance, then yes, you'll be required to purchase insurance or pay the tax penalty.

[ixion]

64. I have insurance, however

it is basically only catastrophic coverage. I pay about $140 a month. From what I've read, the minimum "certified" plans will start at around $400. That was a couple months ago, so something might have changed, but my gut feeling is that I will be required to buy more than I really want.

This is why I'm opposed to mandates, that and I see it as nothing more than the Insurance Company Profit Protection Act.

[subterranean]

105. Then you'll have to pay more if you switch plans.

Under the House bill, you'll be allowed to keep your current catastrophic coverage under a grandfather clause, provided that:
1) the insurance company enrolls no new individuals in the plan (except for dependents), and
2) there are no changes in the terms and conditions of the plan.

If the company changes the plan, or decides to discontinue it (and they eventually will), then you'll be required to get a "qualified" plan, which provides more insurance coverage than you want.

You can use this calculator to determine roughly how much that might cost you:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[ixion]

110. yeah, it's that "more than you want" part that is the deal breaker

and why I won't be supporting it.

[NNN0LHI]

94. You are spending less than 1% of your income on health insurance now?

You make a lot of money don't you?

Don

[ixion]

96. not really...

I just don't spend a great deal on insurance. :)

I do okay. I'm paying the bills. But sans cash flow I've only got a couple months of a buffer.

[NNN0LHI]

97. How much is not really?

[ixion]

98. enough to pay the bills, but

not enough to claim that I am, by any means, independently wealthy.

[NNN0LHI]

100. Top 4 or 5 % perhaps?

[ixion]

108. Yep, for now...

I write code, so that can change at any moment.

Incidentally, I've lived at the bottom as well. I did a great deal of traveling -- the work-as-you-go way -- when I got out of college, and lived on next-to-nothing for a decade or so.

[NNN0LHI]

112. I knew that

I can understand your position very well now.

You got yours.

Don

[ixion]

119. well, no, that's not my position actually... so since you're curious

I see health care as part of the infrastructure of a healthy society.

I believe we could have a first-rate health and human services system, if we wouldn't waste so much money on the MIC, and on BS wars of aggression abroad.

I think insurance companies should be eliminated all together. The are part of the problem, and integrating them deeper into the system is not going to make that better.

We don't need tax increases or mandates. We need to focus on rebuilding our shredded social fabric and stop trying to be an empire.

We need to start acting like human beings. Human beings are not automatons. We are tragically-flawed creatures, who often make mistakes. Our society allows for none of that. I'd like to see a society -- and the government by proxy -- be more compassionate to the people who pay the bills.

I'd like to see us rebuild the education system, and really teach people how to use their brain. We don't do that, either.

That is my position. That has been my position since I really had a position. It has not changed.

Is there anything else I can clear up for you?

[Mass]

127. Covering what exactly (or is it that your income is high?)

[ixion]

135. major medical only

[grasswire]

25. If I already pay more than 8% and am going to get a reduction..

...then I can anticipate what comes after.

Insurance companies will NOT absorb that loss. They will cut benefits, increase co-pays, or whatever it takes to wring the money out.

It's like banks are doing right now when regulations are tightening up. They are scurrying to increase revenues in new ways.

The love of money is indeed the root of all evil.

[barbtries]

26. okay so 8% for insurance

how much for copays? how much for prescriptions? how much for procedures? so the insurance companies will be guaranteed 8% of my income, will i be guaranteed decent healthcare for those dollars?

[CoffeeCat]

27. Axelrod's statement revealed how AWFUL this bill is...it's mind blowing...

So, we've got a family of four--making 35k a year--barely surviving. They
can't afford healthcare now, because they can barely put food on the table and
keep a roof over their heads.

Along comes David Axelrod with a bill for $2,700. Here's your healthcare, kids...pay up!
If this family of four doesn't pay for their mandated health insurance--they are fined
by the government. And by the way, that 8 percent doesn't count co-pays and other fees
that the insurance companies decide to tack on.

This is a complete joke!

We are in the middle of a deep recession. People are unemployed, or they are digging out
because they WERE unemployed or they took a pay cut.

Someone---please tell me where this family of four making $35k is going to come up with $2,700?
Or the family that is making less--where are they going to come up with an extra $1,000.

We should all be outraged. There is no reform. We are being FORCED to pay into a broken-down,
wasteful system--and enrich the damn health-insurance companies--that were given a major windfall
with this bill.

It is nothing short of SICK and INSULTING!

[DJ13]

39. +++++ 1

[mzmolly]

42. Not exactly. There are subsidies that help with lower income

families. However, one trip to the ER would cost that same family much more. I've never felt I could "afford" health insurance, but it's a necessity.

In addition, unless the family in your scenario is self employed I'm assuming that they have coverage already?

[subterranean]

56. Your hypothetical family of four would pay closer to $1700,

or 4.9% of their income, at least according to this subsidy calculator:
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Under the House bill, which has more generous subsidies, they would only pay about $1200. Do you think any family could find a decent insurance policy for $1200 or $1700 a year now?

Now what kind of insurance they'll be able to get for that I have no idea. I do know there will still be co-pays and deductibles.

[EFerrari]

86. When we were a struggling family of 4, it might as well have been 17 million.

That's a lot of money for working people.

But, 8% sounds nice and manageable, doesn't it?

[Maine-ah]

90. a family of four making 35k a year can't even come up with

"only $1200" . That's $100 a month. I doubt they have any money left over at the end of the month to come up with that. Shit, we're a family of three making about 50k a year, and we're having a hard time of it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

88. That's pretty much on par...

...with what they'd be required to pay in most European countries. Did you think universal health care was going to be free?

[GreenPartyVoter]

151. You just described my family. However we are on Medicaid so we aren't going without care. I wish

everyone could be on a Medicaid-like program, albeit one that also covers eyeglasses and dental. :) That's what I kept asking the President and my Sens and Reps for. Unfortunately, they either didn't get the message or passed on it in favor of supporting the insurance industry.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TransitJohn]

81. And how much is from peopel who want health care but are being forced to buy health insurance? n/t

n/t

[Cleita]

33. Eight percent? That's a lot for some people. Of course for a millionaire bullshitter

it's nothing.

[yodoobo]

59. Even if you make $100,000 a year, your policy is only $8,000

Which is dirt cheap. Many policies cost far far more.

If you make $10,000 a year, now your policy is only $800, or $66 a month.

That is a fantastic deal for healthcare.

[subterranean]

63. Actually, a single adult making $10,000 a year would pay nothing.

They'd be on Medicaid.

[subterranean]

66. [Deleted]

[Maine-ah]

92. I know a deaf man who makes that

and was denied from Mainecare.

[gaspee]

148. WRONG

You have to have dependents to get medicaid in my state. Those of us who have chosen not to procreate are supposed to fuck off and die.

I make way less than 10,000 a year and have no health care. I cannot afford 8% of my income. I cannot afford 1% of my income. It's all spent. Every penny.

[madfloridian]

Oh, come on...you have to qualify for subsidies.

[yodoobo]

'No one"

means nobody.

[FLDCVADem]

113. You are completely misinterpreting what Axelrod said

purposely or not, you are putting forth incorrect information.

[yodoobo]

115. Actually I havent represented anything

of what axelrod said,

I'm just discussing what the OP said about what Axelrod said.

If its truly only 8% of our income, then that is a wonderful deal for all of America.


If it its not, then it would be great if someone could explain what the real deal is.

[FLDCVADem]

116. It's already been explained, multiple times. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

152. $8000 is like... 5X more than I pay now.

It's only me and my spouse (no kids). The coverage is actually really good, too.
100% preventative care/exams covered, 80% of other stuff, cheap copays, vision, dental...

I know, as well as my coworkers, that pretty good coverage can be <$1000/yr.

[pecwae]

154. A fantastic deal for insurance perhaps.

Health care is a different story.

[mmonk]

37. What good is that as far as getting people insured?

We already have the choice of continuing with expensive health insurance or doing without.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

62. Hard to keep healthy people paying into the system when it becomes

cost prohibitive especially for those over 50.

[grytpype]

71. Be fair, your health care is going to cost more when you are over 50.

I know everyone wants a free lunch, but there isn't one.

At least under the new system, if you're covered by an employer plan it won't be taken away.

If you don't have an employer plan, you'll be able to get coverage on the exchanges regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Right now, I would hate to know what the quote would be for a 50 year old's coverage on the individual market, if you could get coverage at all.

[mmonk]

156. Other countries don't discriminate against their citizens as they get older.

How can they do it but we can't? In fact, those on Medicare are supposed to be less healthy than me. So if you expanded medicare to include more healthy people, it would go to figure it would cost less no matter by what mechanism you pay it with. I am the one that is being fair. And as far as free goes, we have been starting wars on public debt but nobody who complains about the costs of including more people on medicare or medicaid has a shit fit over how much their wars cost.

[Cirque du So-What]

40. I'm paying roughly 8% now

for a policy with an outrageous deductible + a horrendous upper limit on out-of-pocket expenses. There's a $1M lifetime limit as well; one catastrophic incident could burn through that without thinking twice about it.

I'm sorry if some of you pay a pittance for insurance coverage; it's not strictly about you. Healthcare must be paid for in some manner - through individual contributions or through taxation - but it must be paid for, just like in any civilized society.

[still_one]

60. Your point is valid, and it would be about 2 to 3K more for me, however this actually detracts from

how bad the bill is. Which is why they should amend it after it becomes law

[Cirque du So-What]

107. I agree that amendments are needed

but I still want to see this bill get passed. Otherwise, another opportunity may no arise for many years. I guess that puts me in the half-a-loaf camp; so be it.

[still_one]

142. I am with you. I have moved toward you position in the last 48 hours /nt

[robinlynne]

46. I would love to know more details. That means my insurance bill will

decrease by approx 80%. cool. (as in, yeah right.) sure the insurance company will reduce my payment from the current 400 to 80.00 a month. sure.

[still_one]

55. That would amount to 3000 dollars a year more than I pay under my companies group health plan /nt

[yodoobo]

61. Its not about you.

Its about everyone.

I think that FR and DU should just setup a join healthcare griping board, since their complaints are all exactly the same.

"WHAT ABOUT ME???"

[still_one]

143. Yes it is about me, and I am making a statement. I will make another statement

if I lose my job next year, which it is a 50/50 chance that it will get off-shored, and I need to buy health insurance on my own, it would cost me 12K without any pre-existing conditions

That would amount to at least 8K more than it would cost me under the NEW HCR act.

I am not saying I am against the plan passing, in fact, even though I think the HCR plan from the Senate is not great, there is no other way that it could have passed. It was a stroke of genius to get this bill through, and hopefully into law. I also believe that it will get amended after it becomes law.

[subterranean]

74. It doesn't apply to group health plans.

I believe he was mainly referring to individual insurance. Don't worry, you won't have to pay 8% unless your company changes its benefit policy.

[still_one]

144. I was not actually complaining. Perhaps I should have clarified. If I lose my job and become

unemployed and have no health insurance, it would cost me 12K a year assuming I have no pre-existing conditions, which I have hypertension, so it would be even more or nothing

In that case, the current HCR act would save my ass

[mzmolly]

77. No, you can KEEP that plan.

:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

57. does that include people on medicare...?

i already pay 8% of my monthly benefit amount for parts a & b- does that mean that prescription drug coverage and the supplemental coverage that pays the 20% medicare doesn't cover will be free...?

[mzmolly]

79. I don't believe so.

eom

[dysfunctional press]

87. so axelrod is just a lying fuckwad.

but we already knew THAT.

[mzmolly]

91. Medicare is optional

so his point never pertained.

[dysfunctional press]

102. all health insurance is optional- so what's your point?

:shrug:

[2Design]

65. 8% of 10,000 is a larger chunk for the person than 8% of 100,000

one affects living the other is small change

[mzmolly]

80. Most people who make 10K have employer based

coverage I presume?

[Raineyb]

109. You presume wrong

If you're making 10K from wages you're certainly working for a low wage and those jobs are notorious for having BAD insurance plans IF it's offered and it's likely not. Having a roof over your head would eat up a large chunk of that money. Not to mention eating. Where is this extra 8% supposed to come from?

[mzmolly]

121. People in that income bracket qualify

for existing programs and supplements.

Also, I've never felt I could "afford" any kind of insurance. BUT, I have it.

[Raineyb]

139. That is NOT what you said. You presumed that they would have coverage

through their employer. And your presumption was wrong.

[mzmolly]

140. What I've said was that most people

in any income bracket have insurance via their employer. I later responded to your assertion about affordability with the fact that people in the 10K bracket who DON'T have employer based ins. already have access to existing programs.

[DJ13]

126. My wife's low wage work place offers insurance

To cover both of us it would cost 80% of her monthly net.

Thats not a misprint.

[Raineyb]

138. My point exactly n/t

[mzmolly]

141. Which is why

we need reform.

[subterranean]

68. I think some people are missing an important point.

Axelrod didn't mean that insurance costs will never exceed 8% for anyone. He meant that the mandate would not apply to you if the cheapest plan available costs you more than 8% of your income, after any subsidies. In that case, you would not be penalized for not purchasing insurance.

I don't know where he came up with that 8% figure, anyway. I've never heard of any 8% cap on premiums until now.

[FLDCVADem]

70. Thank you for clarifying this

I was just about to do the same.

There is no 8% cap on premiums, nothing like that was even mentioned.

[mzmolly]

82. Right.

:hi:

[yodoobo]

137. Right. People can buy gold plated plans if they want to

But a basic plan will not exceed 8%

If people want to signup for hollywood gold plated plans that pay for liposuction, plastic surgery and the like, they are certainly free to do so.

[Hannah Bell]

89. it's ridiculous. 8% of income plus medicare & medicaid payments (which cover

the populations with most risk factors). Plus out of pocket.

[Romulox]

93. "Only" 8% for catostrophic care coverage? The wealthy are so out of touch with regular people.

[mzmolly]

101. Is that for catastrophic coverage?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

103. People who are at their limits will naturally not be able to afford comprehensive plans.

This is basic logic. :hi:

Of course none of this even begins to figure copays and deductibles.

[jwirr]

95. When I go to the social services and ask for help I have to prove

that I am indeed poor. How are we going to prove that we cannot afford insurance. For most programs it is housing costs, heating and cooking costs, out of pocket medical expenses, etc. What happens to the family that is so far in debt to the bank or credit card company that they cannot afford the insurance - bankruptcy? I thought this was supposed to help people from losing their homes etc. I will not work that way. Most of us are deeply in debt. So either you dump the debt or refuse to buy insurance. What a dilemma.

[subterranean]

158. You don't need to be in debt to the bank or credit card co.

If I'm not mistaken, the cheapest health insurance plans will still have out-of-pocket costs (including co-pays and deductibles) up to $10,000 for a family. I can easily see how someone who runs up that $10,000 tab might not be able to afford their insurance payments the next year.

[sendero]

99. Is that like the maximum 8% unemployment..

... we would get if we passed the stimulus bill?

These statements have about as much credibility as George Bush's speeches.

[IndianaGreen]

120. That's very white of Axelrod!

FRAK him!

[Mass]

128. Hardship Exemption . This does not give you access to healthcare. Just gives you the right to not to

ruin yourself before you get sick.

[mzmolly]

129. Seems you're

right, sadly.

[Nikki Stone1]

133. I know you're trying Molly. But I trust Axelrod as much as I trust Geithner.

And that would be a big ZERO.

[ima_sinnic]

150. 8% for insurance, but how much for health care? (nt)

[pecwae]

155. Sorry.

It's insurance only, not health care.

[ima_sinnic]

157. my point exactly--8% for insurance, what additional % for health care?

[MadHound]

153. So how's that going to work out? After all, most people are paying way beyond 8% right now

And this bill isn't going to do a thing to bring those costs down.

Oh, that's right, this is simply Axelrod spwing more bullshit.

[subterranean]

159. This thread is a great illustration

of why there's so much misinformation about health care reform. Look at all the confusion about this one issue alone! The problem is that how the reform will impact you depends on so many different factors -- income, employment status, age, and so on. One person might pay 2% of their income for insurance, another person 8% and another 15%. Some people will have to pay a penalty for not buying insurance, others won't. It's no surprise that the words "except" and "exception" appear hundreds of times in the bills. After the reforms pass, we'll still have the most complicated, wasteful, inefficient and expensive health care funding system in the world.