Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The High Cost of Reform (Health Reform Part 3 of 4)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 04:57 PM
Original message
The High Cost of Reform (Health Reform Part 3 of 4)
Edited on Sat Mar-20-10 05:47 PM by Political Heretic
(NOTE: - the original source contains hyperlinked text linking to additional resources and references. Please click on the link below for full review.)

Previous Parts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7956377|Part 1 - The Trillion Dollar Wealth Transfer>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7964125|Part 2 - The Facade of Reform>


LINK:http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2010/03/high-cost-of-reform-health-reform-part.html|The High Cost of Reform (Health Reform Part 3 of 4)>

By Political Heretic
March 20, 2010

If you are a working class family, you will very likely go to bed and night praying the same prayer after insurance reform (or, if you prefer, you can use the euphemism “health care reform”) that you prayed before reform:

Dear God, please don’t let me or anyone in my family ever get really sick. Because if we do, it will bankrupt us.

Let’s say you are a family of four with a combined income at the median income level for my home state, the state of Oregon. Under the insurance reform bill, your family would get a tax-credit that would bring your annual premium costs down to approximately $5,550 (see the Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator for details on figuring this subsidy.) Not exactly chump change, but admittedly less than it would cost your family without it.

This tax-credit is being called a “subsidy,” which can be confusing. Your family would still be paying the full premium amount of nearly $10,000 annually, however upon filing taxes you would be eligible to get some of that money back. If your family happens to have other critical expenses or debts at the time you receive your tax refund, its not outside the realm of possibility that you may feel forced to use that credit for other critical debt just to keep your family afloat, which puts you right back to square one with a nearly $10,000 premium bill annually.

Next, you have the cost of your insurance deductable. If your family is struggling to get by, which could easily be the case if you are making median income in a high cost part of the state of Oregon, you would likely be part of a “Bronze” insurance package (See Part 1 for more detail.) Under a bronze plan, your family’s deductible would be $2,000.

Then you have our out-of-pocket costs for care. Under the Senate insurance reform bill being considered, the annual cap on out of pocket costs would be approximately $12,000 for your family of four. Under a Bronze insurance package, your coverage ratio would be 60 / 40 – meaning the insurance provider would pay 60% of costs after your $2,000 deductible is reached, and you would be responsible for the other 40% of costs up to about $12,000.

So imagine your son or daughter is in serious need of major health care. You have tests, hospitalization, surgery and perhaps physical therapy to follow. You pay 40% of incurred costs given the type of insurance plan you family can afford. You will easily have expenses pushing you up to the max of your annual cap on out of pocket expenses. (Even if you had an 80/20 coverage plan, you will still easily reach this cap, given the extreme cost of care in the United States

So, in this year you and your family would be facing approximately $19,500 of costs for health care, assuming you were able to apply your tax credit to the cost of your premium, and assuming that your year of crisis falls neatly between calendar years. This translates to 31% of your median income. Thirty One Percent.

For many if not most families, that's bankrupting. If that would have happened to me when I still was living in my own home, it would have put me on the street.

So here we are, in the “greatest” country in the world, and after over a year of political bickering and back and forth, hard working American families get ordered by law to buy crappy private insurance without any significant protection against rising rates and exponentially increasing costs of care. We get legislation that leaves millions of American families in the same situation they were in before insurance reform: praying to God that their family never gets seriously sick, because it will be bankrupting.

Meanwhile, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland are all guaranteeing their citizens health care at little or no out of pocket cost.

Short Term Gains, Long Term Failure

The scenario above is the reality millions of American families will face after insurance reform. And it illustrates one of the greatest tragedies of Washington politics. Partly because of reelection concerns, party because of our culture of immediate gratification and partly because of generations of basic economic calculations built on unproven assumptions that bear little resemblance to reality, politicians choose a system of short term benefits at the cost of long term disasters.

Not only is it true that millions of Americans will not be benefited at all by this legislation (15 million, to be exact,) and not only is it true that millions of Americans will be no better off after insurance reform than they were before insurance reform (if you can’t afford costs of care after reform, then you’re no better of than you were if you couldn’t afford costs before reform) – but it is also true that millions of Americans who will see modest benefits from this legislation in the short run will watch as those benefits shrivel and fade away in the long run.

Why?

Given the fact that there is no direct control of prices for either insurance premiums or medical services, these costs will continue to exponentially rise year after year. Even with a 85% MLR requirement (Medical Loss Ratio, the proportion of health care insurance premium dollars spent on health care claims,) without related price regulation mechanisms, such a cap only encourages rising prices to expand profit margins.

So each year both the cost of health services and the cost of insurance is going to go up. This means more and more families will be maxing out the out of pocket cap for co-payment medical expenditure. This means that more and more families will be breaking the $10,000 barrier on health care each passing year, thus pressing family after family into financial crisis.

Likewise as premium costs increase one of two things will happen. Either the government’s tax credits for families below 400% of FPL (Federal Poverty Line) will fail to keep up with rising costs, passing more and more of the burden back to families until the point where they are right back to where we all started – with premiums so expensive they cannot be paid. Or, the government will continue adjusting tax credits to offset rising premium rates, in which case the supposed “savings” to the federal deficit will be eviscerated as the government spends unsustainable amounts of money desperately trying to prop up a faulty system.

These are the long-term harms we are accepting for the sake of some short term, temporary gains. Like cowards, our politicians have chosen to punt our health care crisis to our children to let them deal with it. Because sooner or later, rising premium and health service costs will bring us right back to the crisis we face today.

Coming Soon:

Part 4 – Is Something Really Better than Nothing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R...UP to +5
Excellent piece of work.

With your permission,
I would like to print out the series for local handouts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. By all means
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Thanks!
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. PH have you listened to Professor Jonathan Gruber go over reform ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I surely have. Short-term thinking vs. long-term thinking.
Edited on Sat Mar-20-10 06:06 PM by Political Heretic
The cost to a median income family is not made up. The fact that 31% of annual income is likely bankrupting is also not made up.

The problem with proponents is a nasty dose of short term thinking. Tragically, after millions of families receive immediate benefits over nothing (no one is denying some families will, millions in fact) - they will ultimately end up right back where we all started, only it will be our children that have to fix our mess.

Thanks to no mechanism for price regulation of either insurance OR health providers both the costs of services themselves and cost of insurance will continue to go up. Neither an exchange or an 85% MLR requirement change that. In fact the 85% MLR is the most sickening thing of all, because without paired price regulation it actually ENCOURAGES prince increases in both health services and insurance. So eventually, people helped now will be paying more and more out of pocket and more and more in premiums (either that our the government will via subsidy, thus screwing up deficit savings calculations) until we're back to a crisis again.

In the meantime, millions of families will be no better off under this bill (either immediately or in the long term) because if costs of care are still bankrupting for you after insurance reform, then it really doesn't matter how much money the reform "saved" you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Without commeting on your rhetoric again,
I wanted to post the video series for those interested in hearing from an economic professor who helped write the bill.

In addition, the professor has this to say about claims regarding mandates and costs to individuals.

"The bills are also said to impose unaffordable mandates on individuals. Without the individual mandate, fundamental insurance-market reform is impossible and we cannot cover the majority of the uninsured. But an individual mandate without financial assistance for low-income families is unethical. Both bills contain billions of dollars in subsidies to help families pay for health insurance — and an exclusion from the mandate for families that still find coverage unaffordable. Rather than imposing an unaffordable mandate, these bills would finally guarantee that almost all Americans could find affordable insurance."

Link here >>> http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2473

Professor Gruber also makes it clear that a large part of reform is the ability to compare systems via state wide funding for experimental pilot programs. He also indicates that the bill is a beginning and will require modification where need be.

Ultimately he agrees with both of us that we need to do more to help individuals with cost, than the Senate plan in it's original state did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Nothing in that quote addresses the scenario of the median income family in the OP
Since the "financial assistance" being offered is included in the example, using the Kaiser calculator.

The larger problem is that I believe Gruber is incorrect that this is a beginning or a "foundation." It's a setback. It will have to be undone, before we take meaningful strides forward. And that won't happen for a while, if ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. The video presentation
goes into more depth. I'll try to watch again later and post a point by point. :hi: However, the Professor dispelled a couple myths. He said that no one would be forced to spend more than a certain percentage of their income on HC. (Though it wasn't clear it me if he was speaking about premiums alone???) And he indicated that those with pre-existing conditions can NOT be charged more than those without as of 2014.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. He was speaking about premiums.
He could also be speaking about the out of pocket (i.e. co-pay) cap, which caps at 11,900$ for families. If you are near the FPL that cap is reduced, at least it was in a previous version of health care reform. I hope that's still there.

But it makes no difference, because everything I described in my OP is accounting for EACH of those things.

The "certain percentage" bit is referring to the cost of insurance itself. Not the cost of care. For example, if your employer offers insurance, normally you would not be eligible for a subsidy or to be part of the exchange. But if what your employer offers is over 9% (I think that's the percent) of your annual income, then you become eligible for subsidy and the exchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. The reconcilliation version of the plan is at the KFF website.
It seems to follow the house bill. I would like clarification on the numbers though given what I've just read. I don't think any of us can assume that a family will have a 20K out of pocket expense, at this time.

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

"The proposal also makes available a catastrophic policy for young adults and those exempted from the requirement to obtain insurance that is less comprehensive and has a lower premium than other coverage. It is not reflected in the calculator. Some subsidized people are also eligible for reduced cost sharing, in addition to premium subsidies. These are not illustrated in the calculator."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. The reconciliation plan gives the same result, includes same deductable and same out of pocket cap.
Edited on Sun Mar-21-10 05:04 PM by Political Heretic
Meaning, all the numbers I gave in the original post are entirely accurate, no matter how much you keep shaking your head in disbelief, they are still the same.

Oh and its not 20% for this family.... its 31%. $19,500 out of $61,945 - median income in Oregon fiscal year 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. As I've said previously if your worst case scenario math is correct, the same family would pay 16K
more without reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. As I've said previously, if its bankrupting its bankrupting. It doesn't help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I think this bill could make the difference between bankruptcy
or not, losing ones home or not, losing ones life or not... As you know, Harvard studies support my last statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Not if you're making $61,945 and facing $19,500
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. For the sake of argument I'll give you the 19,5 vs........
infinite expenses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. "You broke my back!" "yeah but I only used 300 pounds instead of 600." "Oh well THANKS!"
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. .
:eyes: is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I'm glad we agree.
Please keep posting, mzmolly. You keep my thread at the top of the boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Will do dude.
When I'm not watching the debate. ;)

I love your passion, even if we feel differently about this reform package.

Peace. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Well, shit - thanks :P
:hi:

As I said in the part 4 bit, I'm mostly done now. Obviously this is going to become law, and then we'll all have to deal with whatever happens.

I'd love to be wrong, and come back and a few years and eat crow. It would be so delicious, because it would mean far more Americans were helped in the long run rather than hurt like I fear.

But for now, I posted part 4, so I finished my series - which was basically the culmination of everything I've learned and every opinion I've formed over the last year.

It's going to be law now, so it would be silly to keep posting about how it shouldn't be law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. You're dropping the ball!
Needed another kick :P

Mostly just kidding....

I'm about done with my health care stuff... obviously its going to pass, and it will take years to collect data on the effects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Sorry man.
I was glued to the tele, watching the debate. :D

As you've said, the bill is now law. I do hope we'll both eventually agree, that this bill is a foundation for better things to come.

:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinblue Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. K and R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. Excellent.
A tax credit? I doubt I'll qualify for one, but if I did, it sure wouldn't help me pay my mortgage and living expenses each month.

I'm already in the position of paying for insurance I can't afford to use, and I don't see that changing with this version of "reform." As a matter of fact, I may have to pay MORE to get no care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. Great point.
This is one of the things that concerns me, is that the people who keep talking about subsidies are either uninformed or lying that the subsidy would be some kind of monthly credit that would help you pay the mafiosi insurance agencies; people would be on the hook for an entire year, then maybe they would get a refund at tax time. But people can't afford the outrageous prices for insurance now; this will do nothing to change that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. Kick for the numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
18. This information is completely inaccurate
Edited on Sun Mar-21-10 10:57 AM by ProSense
Let’s say you are a family of four with a combined income at the median income level for my home state, the state of Oregon. Under the insurance reform bill, your family would get a tax-credit that would bring your annual premium costs down to approximately $5,550 (see the Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator for details on figuring this subsidy.) Not exactly chump change, but admittedly less than it would cost your family without it.

This tax-credit is being called a “subsidy,” which can be confusing. Your family would still be paying the full premium amount of nearly $10,000 annually, however upon filing taxes you would be eligible to get some of that money back. If your family happens to have other critical expenses or debts at the time you receive your tax refund, its not outside the realm of possibility that you may feel forced to use that credit for other critical debt just to keep your family afloat, which puts you right back to square one with a nearly $10,000 premium bill annually.

Next, you have the cost of your insurance deductable. If your family is struggling to get by, which could easily be the case if you are making median income in a high cost part of the state of Oregon, you would likely be part of a “Bronze” insurance package (See Part 1 for more detail.) Under a bronze plan, your family’s deductible would be $2,000.

Then you have our out-of-pocket costs for care. Under the Senate insurance reform bill being considered, the annual cap on out of pocket costs would be approximately $12,000 for your family of four. Under a Bronze insurance package, your coverage ratio would be 60 / 40 – meaning the insurance provider would pay 60% of costs after your $2,000 deductible is reached, and you would be responsible for the other 40% of costs up to about $12,000.

First of all if the coverage is employer based, the employer picks up a significant portion of the premium.

•The calculator does not apply to people with coverage available through an employer, where the firm is generally paying for a substantial portion of the insurance premium.


The calculator is for people on the individual market, a very small segment of the population. Also, the calculator premiums are based on a 70 percent actuarial value, not 60.

The premiums are illustrative examples in 2009 dollars. For a 40 year old single adult, the premium for a silver plan is assumed to be $3,500 for a plan with a 70% actuarial value.


Medicare's actuarial value is 76 percent. The exchange offers plans up to 90 percent.

source


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. This about that
From the above post:


•The calculator does not apply to people with coverage available through an employer, where the firm is generally paying for a substantial portion of the insurance premium.


The calculator is for people on the individual market, a very small segment of the population. Also, the calculator premiums are based on a 70 percent actuarial value, not 60.


Those on the individual market, this 'small segment', to whom you refer are the nearly 50 million going without coverage because they can not afford it and do not have it through employers. They were, we heard, one of the prime reasons we needed health care reform. You post seems to dismiss the fact that this bill does not offer them affordable access and, therefore, does not improve the situation much. I'm worried about having to pay the premiums on the front end. If we get back to an income where we have to buy insurance I know we won't be able to pay the premium and wait for the tax credit we get at the end of the year. And it sure won't leave us enough to try to meet a deductible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Wrong
"Those on the individual market, this 'small segment', to whom you refer are the nearly 50 million going"

The OP refers to people with incomes. There are millions of people among the 50 million uninsured who will be eligible for Medicaid and who are unemployed (no income).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
19. What is the combined income at the median income level for Oregon?
Edited on Sun Mar-21-10 11:03 AM by Emit
What figure did you use for your calculations?

Also, what age range did you use for the policy holder?

And when you used the calculator at KFF, which proposal did you base your calculation on, House, Senate, Obama's or Reconciliation Proposal?

Thanks in advance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. age doesn't matter (but 40); $61,945;, Senate Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. With regard to Subsidies and credits, as I understand it, advanceable tax credit would be available
Edited on Sun Mar-21-10 12:21 PM by Emit
As noted here:

Premium and cost-sharing subsidies to individuals:

White House/Congressional Leadership Reconciliation Bill
Health Care and Education Affordability Act of 2010
(H.R. 4872)

... Provide refundable and advanceable premium credits to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 133-400% FPL to purchase insurance through the Exchanges. ...



Premium and cost-sharing subsidies to individuals:

Senate Bill
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(H.R. 3590)

.... Provide refundable and advanceable premium credits to individuals and families with incomes between 100-400% FPL to purchase insurance through the Exchanges...
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm




As I understand it, an advanceable tax credit allows people to claim the credit up front when insurance premiums are due rather than waiting until the end of the year for reimbursement. Do you interpret this differently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Two misconceptions about this
First of all, premiums do not necessarily start neatly at the first of the year. But most importantly, in many cases (if not most cases) you don't pay premiums in advance. So we may calculate that someone's 12 month cost for insurance premiums equals a certain amount. But in nearly every case those are not expenses that can be paid up in advance. This is because of the potential for rates to change, among other things. This was also true of employer based plans because of the fact you might not be employed in a subsequent month.

Consequently in situations like this, before you can claim the tax credit, you have to have already paid twelve months worth of cost. This is my understanding, in most cases - it is possible that there are exceptions. Thus this means that while the tax credit may allow for advance, it's highly unlikely that anyone would be able to actually pay in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
48. Just so we are clear, what I was referring to is that an advanceable
tax credit is one that can be brought forward and used immediately, rather than having to be reclaimed at the end of the year. Therefore, it brings down the cost of immediate out of pocket expenses.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. K&R. Health "Insurance" = BIGGEST SCAM EVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
28. I'm amazed at the people who, when confront point blank with actual numbers, can't / won't believe
Edited on Sun Mar-21-10 05:02 PM by Political Heretic
"That must not be true.....because that would suck....."


Uh yeah.... that's what we've been trying to fucking tell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I've provided you with the KFF link previously. Your first reaction was "that can't be true
because it's not as bad as I said" remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Um, no.
Not quite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Uh yeah.
I see you're testy today? I understand. I'll chat with you another time. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. um, no.
That's a disingenuous distortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. You don't recall saying the KFF calculator was incorrect?
Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. The KFF was inaccurate, and remains inaccurate.
I use it because supporters use it, and even using your own tools, the outlook is grim.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Oh bologna.
However, you're using the MAX OUT OF POCKET expenses to calculate your worst case scenario. And you never say what the same family would face without reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. I am, because I think it matters.
The entire article is about the fact that millions of families still can't afford health care when they really need it.

And consequently go to bed at night praying the same prayer they prayed before insurance reform: Dear God, please don't let anyone in my family get really sick, because it will break us.

I was writing about what happens when you need serious care, because that is a situation millions of families will face. Once out of pocket expenses get as high as 30% of your annual income - that's bankrupting. Having been through bankruptcy myself, I know what this is like.

And having been through it myself, I promise you, it doesn't matter if $19,500 is bankrupting, or $60,000 (a made up number) is bankrupting - its bankrupting.

Like my post title before - "You broke my back!" "Yeah, but I only used 300 pounds to do it instead of 600 pounds." "Oh well, thanks!"

What's really said about this is the argument of "yeah well it wouldn't have been worse before reform" is so spoken like something completely out of touch with financially struggling families. If the costs you must pay are brankrupting, they are bankrupting. That's the ball game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC