Here's what to do: Pay the fine instead of the premiums until you find out

[rateyes]

your health bills will exceed the amount of the premiums. Then, sign up for the insurance until you are well, and then drop the insurance again, and go back to paying the fine. They can't deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition, so why not?

[graywarrior]

1. That's what some people in MA do.

And the fact that there IS coverage available makes life easier.

[rateyes]

28. Hi, graywarrior,

happy holidays! :hi:

[graywarrior]

29. Hey you!

:toast:

[Jamastiene]

2. People will probably have to do that.

I know some parents do that with their teenagers who are getting ready to get their license for the first time. They'll put them on the insurance long enough to get the license, then take them off. Once they earn enough of their own money to buy their own car or pay the difference in the insurance cost, they put them back on the insurance.

[CTyankee]

3. While I can understand people's unhappiness with the way this system has played out,

I am very uncomfortable with gaming the system and encouraging others to do so. If the less fortunate folks who will have no health insurance if the system fails, you have exacted a very heavy price out of someone's possible wellbeing. Rest assured the politicians who passed this will never feel your anger, righteous tho you may think it is, but others will.

Surely we can work to effect change without the potential harm your solution would bring, if done on a massive basis.

[AllentownJake]

8. I agree with the OP

The Insurance cartel just gamed the system fuck them and fuck congress.

[CTyankee]

13. No love here for them, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

Are you really hurting or in any way doing anything to the insurance cartel and/or congress?

[AllentownJake]

15. Your hurting their bottom line and embarassing congress

fine by me.

[CTyankee]

16. I would hope we could hurt their bottom lines but I don't think this ploy will do it.

It will prolly be used by the RW to have us return to the good old days or the status quo now. And as for embarrassing Congress...:rofl:

[uponit7771]

33. Here's were we agree AJ

[truedelphi]

20. Then you should be really upset that almost everyone in Power is

Gaming the system.

The only ones approaching this "Health Care Reform" business with any thing resembling intelligence were the Progressive Caucus members in the House (people like Lynn Woolsey) and Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate (And bernie is not even A Dem - he is an indie)

Everyone else gamed the system. Many of them will be vastly rewarded, like Rahm's brother who really put together a lot of this scam. Any key players in Congress will be assured of a very nice executive level position at any number of Health Insurance firms. Positions that pay out millions and require not all that much.

But we the little person cannot?

Why?

[CTyankee]

22. Well, if we all do that perhaps that will get us back to where we were when we started

and if you think we should do that, fine... you are dreaming if you think we can get to single payer by doing it...

[truedelphi]

24. I am not talking about a political ploy. I am talking about survival.

If you really think that people making 54K a year, and who live in any of many places in this nation where they have already been forced out of the housing market (even with prices having fallen!)these people simply cannot afford to make 54K a yr, and not have a mortgage deduction to protect that income, and pay out of pocket the 17% a year that this scam will require. DO the math.

Our last yr in the Bay Area, my spouse made 53K a yr, and we lived from pay check to paycheck. Even though our housing/rent costs were minimal.

And our health care came out of pocket 9 percent of his income, (matching funds by employer) with booty left over to go into retirement.

Had we had to pay 17% of that income, we would have had to go without

1) housing
2) food

[CTyankee]

26. I don't doubt your predicament. I'm sure you have a huge concernabout health care costs

eating up a significant portion of your income, if you could afford it at all.

My point IS a political one. And if people feel constrained to all game the system as is being advised on this thread, then the public will be blamed for doing so and give the opposition the "moral authority" to repeal the whole thing and get us back to what we have now. They've done this before with the home mortgage financial crisis...remember, it was all the fault of people getting mortgages who didn't have enough money (or financial sense) to have it. Thus, the Wall St. Journal and Fox News got the private insurance scammers off the hook and poor people (and minorities) were blamed. I see something like this happening with the hcr (which of course is no such thing).

Do you have enough money for health insurance now?

[truedelphi]

37. Ironically after a medical bankruptcy, we are now on

County Paid for Medical Plan, and the service is great and the nurses and doctors in the system are wonderful.

But if we had owned a house, something we could never have afforded but let's say that we had, then we would be like many other people - we would be doing without health care, out of a fear that the County or state would end up taking the home away from us.

[CTyankee]

42. Will your insurance continue after "reform" sets in or will it change?

If the formula is the same to what you have now, in terms of percentage of poverty level, then you'd still be on the county plan. Do you pay anything now? Will it be the same or more under the "reform"?

Of course, you live in an expensive part of the country, just as we do in New Haven, CT. However, my husband worked for the city until he got laid off last March. We are both on Medicare and have his supplement (per union contract) for almost another year. Then we'll prolly get a supplement through AARP. We pay for the supplement and for Medicare Part B (our primary insurance) now but it is affordable. I am getting my hernia repair surgery before the end of the year just in case...however, I'd probably have it under any plan because of the high risk not to do it (which is why I am doing it in the first place; the first repair surgery didn't work, but I have another surgeon and he believes I could face a life threatening situation at some point if I don't at least try this).

[truedelphi]

48. I have no idea how long anything will continue

California is dead broke, so every week the system continues intact is a week I am grateful for.

Maybe the HCR bill will make more money available to the states? I think that the clinic I go to is a community clinic - I hope that the community clinic monies Sanders got will somehow filter down to its levels. I also certainly hope those monies don't require that new clinics have to be be built, but that they support any clinics up and running that are beloved of the people.

I really miss Ted Kennedy - if he were still alive, his staff would send me per my request pertinent parts of the bill. Going on line and dealing with all the 2,000 plus pages is a bit daunting.

Good luck with your surgery. I have been a nursing asistant to some very elderly people, and often they trace their fall from health to a hernia they left untreated. (People who put it off find out that once in their late sixties or seventies, health problems mean no doctor will risk doing the surgery.)

[CTyankee]

49. Thanks for the input re surgery.

I had no idea about the hernia issue with the elderly (which I'm closing in on!). I have to be hopeful at this point that this time it will be successful...

Can't anyone in Boxer or Feinstein's office help you with the questions you have re your current health care and what the Senate bill will do? If it were me, of course, I'd have to go to Dodd's office, given Traitor Joe's villainy. Perhaps one of your senators offices have people who can answer some simple questions re your eligibililty for assistance at the level you now have...it's worth a shot...

I wish you the best...my late brother was a victim of not having proper health care (and his own drinking and smoking that eventually killed him). I had tried to find a county program for him but he was in Texas and I, being in CT, could not physically be there to make sure all of my phone calls and dealings with the County were followed thru upon by my brother...

[levander]

39. Wow you view things as us vs. them...

It wasn't that it was the fault of the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. And, it wasn't that it was the fault of banks that took risks they didn't entirely understand.

It was that it that they both share fault. There wasn't a single thing that led to that bubble. There were many things.

I thought that was universally understood?

[CTyankee]

41. There's not been enough coverage of this issue. It is now "conventional wisdom" that

irresponsible new homeowners sent the economy into the toilet. No real blame for the scammers that cynically played a game of "hot potato" with these toxic mortgages and drove the country almost over the cliff. If we had had proper regulation of the financial services industry in this country itwould not have happened, but Bush & Co. thought whateverwas good for their favored businesses were just fine for the country, and look what happened.

The fact that you think this was "universally understood" just reinforces my point. The Wall St. Journal, Fox and other media folks like Joe Scarborough pushed this meme constantly. If you tell the masses a lie big enough and long enough they think it is universally understood.

[rgbecker]

4. I believe the way Massachusetts has dealt with that is by having...

two buy in periods a year, June and October. Hopefully, you'll get hit by the car, or fall off the rock climbing wall after you sign up rather than waiting until the bone sets crooked. But you know the risks of no insurance if you don't have any already...so why sweat it? The "penalty" is not much and only for those paying taxes, which if you're gaming the system, you probably aren't paying anyway.

Hey, Merry Christmas, I'm just trying to get my posts number up. Its been years, and I haven't reached 1000, and I get no respect.

[Hoyt]

5. Exactly why a mandate is necessary.

Folks who can afford insurance will do exactly that, and then sign up if they get sick now that insurance companies can't use a pre-existing condition to deny coverage.

I do agree that we need a public option (single payer would have been better), but folks that can afford full or partial/subsidized premiums have to have some incentive/inducement to pay premiums even then.

Folks will find a way to "game" the system, just like the greedy insurers have done.

[grahamhgreen]

9. You vs. a multi-billion dollar company and a 2,000 page bill - you will lose. They

will find some reson why you had to pay a fine, or premiums, and yeat are still not covered.

"Fraud", most easily - you committed fraud when you failed to report the correct dates for every cold you got in you life, or your herpes, or the time you cut your finger and got stitches or whatever.

[inna]

18. exactly, and well said. +1

[Hoyt]

25. Except that won't matter when "reform" kicks in.

If "pre-existing" conditions can't be used against you, all that no longer matters. The greedy bastards will be cut off from that reason to deny coverage or claims.

But, if people think it is fair to do as the original poster implied, the system will not work. Insurance, even under Medicare, assumes people will pay something toward their coverage when well to provide some funding when they get sick. If folks are not going to pay when well, they are screwing everyone else. I've grown to expect that from right wingers.

Sure a single payer system would have been better, but too many people including Democrats were against it.

[grahamhgreen]

43. Unfortunatley the can still use preexisting conditions against you in the case of fraud

So they can claim if there is anything you did not disclose - the acne medication you took as a teen and forgot to tell them about - they can kill your insurance

[Hoyt]

45. That would likely not be "fraud" under this Bill.

Since pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage, I don't think it will matter that you forgot to put "acne" down. In fact, that is one of the most important aspects of what we are left with in terms of health insurance reform.

Yes, I know that the insurers might (likely will) try to circumvent the legislation to bolster their profits and exec bonuses, but I don't think there is much doubt as to Congress' intent on this aspect. When this thing fully kicks in, "pre-existing" conditions won't mean a lot and I don't think insurance companies will have much chance to prevail asserting that. Personally, I'd make it a criminal offense by the Board of Directors and officers of any company that tries such tactics.

[grahamhgreen]

50. Well it will be a team of corporate lawyers with unlimited funds arguing my pint, versus

an individual with a debilitating sickness. I wonder who will win?

[enid602]

6. operation

So, if your 25 years old, you pay the fines until you learn you have a rare (but operable) disease which costs $500,000 to treat if uninsured. This person buys the insurance after the operation, assuming that the operation has to be performed in the near term. How is this helping this person?

[sandnsea]

7. The premium will be cheaper for most

So why in the world would you pay a fine and do without health coverage, instead of paying the premium and getting free check-ups, plus routine care, plus insurance in case of catastrophic illness.

Talking to some DUers is worse than talking to teabaggers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. It will probably be higher for me, though

especially if the insurance companies take advantage of the waiting period between now and 2014, which is when the subsidies kick in, to raise the base price and lower the benefits for health insurance.

Why not, if everyone is required to buy it?

Some years, I am over the "400% of poverty level, which means that I will have to pay whatever the insurance companies feel like charging, and since I am over 50, that means that the companies get to price gouge me.

Sane, humane countries don't have price differentials for either age or pre-existing conditions. The charge goes strictly by income and the top price is strictly limited.

[depakid]

12. "especially if the insurance companies take advantage of the waiting period between now and 2014"

The operative word there is when.

They will behave in precisely the same manner as the credit card companies have, since the administration and Congress passed similarly "compromised" legislation, leading to Durbin's now infamous proclamation: "they own the place" (even in the wake of populist anger over the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression).

Speaking of Durbin- He'd make a fine Senate Majority Leader to replace Harry Reid.

[CTyankee]

14. Do you know whether you can enter the high risk pool and get immediate coverage between now

and 2014, even if you are NOT sick at the inception of the program? IOW, is their "rolling admissions" to the high risk pool if down the line a bit you find out you need immediate cancer surgery or have a sudden heart attack?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. I looked at my state's high risk pool, and it was an even worse deal than

private insurance. It's a "good" (i.e. less dreadful) deal only if you're completely uninsurable otherwise and have a lot of money.

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. You must have income left over at the end of each month

After all, how else could one ignore the fact that a lot of people don't have "extra" money to pay the fine OR the insurance company.

[kestrel91316]

51. Paying a premium is no guarantee whatsoever of "free checkups"

or affordable routine care. Those pesky deductibles and copays, you know......

[treestar]

10. Screwing over everyone else who paid into that system

Sounds like fraud.

[stopbush]

17. One word: ACCIDENTS.

A person could try to game the system this way, but what happens if they end up in a bad accident and are admitted to an emergency room? They have no insurance, and they can't get insurance to cover them retroactively to before and including the accident. They would be rolling the dice on the amount of medical costs they would pile up until they were able to apply for insurance and have it start on a day certain.

And what if you never get well? What if you sustain injuries that compromise your health and your quality of life from the moment of the accident forward? Sure, you may be able to get coverage to cover those lifelong expenses, but you still have all those bills from the ER up to the time you do secure insurance. And, that insurance will come from an expensive high-risk pool at a time in your life while you may not be able to work.

Going on and off insurance is a roll of the dice, but not a roll without consequences.

[Clear Blue Sky]

21. Good point.

You don't know you will need insurance until something happens, often with little or no advanced notice.

How long would it take to get insurance? Can you get it with a phone call on your way to the ER or will it take weeks to process? And if no retroactive coverage, you're screwed.

[Thickasabrick]

19. I like it!!! nt

[divideetimpera]

27. it's not even going into effect till 2014, right? N/T

,.,.,.,

[Raine]

31. True but I heard that

they want everyone to start paying long before then, that's what some "talking head" said. :shrug:

[uponit7771]

32. yeap, good post

[crispini]

34. Because one visit to the ER for even a minor thing

will cost you about six hundred dollars. I had to take an uninsured friend to the hospital today for food poisoning and that is what they are going to bill him. That was just the ER, doctor and labs will be more. He is going to have to work out a payment plan for them; he can't afford it.

And that's a really minor thing, no broken bones even.

Imagine what a catastrophic thing like a car wreck requiring surgery would cost.

[uponit7771]

35. See if there's a local CHC around, the cost SHOULD be 80% less than a hospital

[crispini]

40. Nothing open on Christmas Day.

And if you get in a bad car wreck you aren't going to be taken to a CHC.

[TwilightGardener]

36. You can budget and plan ahead for "health bills"?

Wow, I sure couldn't, the morning this past summer that I had to go to the ER for a condition that suddenly worsened. Had I been admitted or needed immediate surgery, I would have been totally ruined, without insurance.

[noamnety]

38. I'd rather see a reverse boycott

Pick the company with the most obscene CEO compensation package, all the preexisting condition folks who know they will be accruing huge expenses should sign up for that one company. Like a walmart boycott in the sense that it's targeted, but a backwards one.

[tritsofme]

44. Thank you for describing why we actually need a tougher mandate

With more teeth.

Otherwise the result is well, this.

[Skittles]

46. you watch: they will tie those fines to your credit rating

[glowing]

47. So, if everyone pd $750.00 into the system... take the 30% margin for the crooked CEO's

and wouldn't we have enough $ to essentially cover a Single-Payer system?