Insurance Mandate-Can you afford to purchase Health Insurance?

Many earn too much to qualify for "premium assistance" yet due to their monthly financial obligations will not be able to afford to purchase insurance regardless of possible lower costs through the "exchanges". So if you earn to much but your income minus your monthly bills doesn't leave you enough to pay for insurance, what will you do? Pay the penalty for not having coverage, take out a loan to pay for insurance, use a credit card to pay the premiums?

Please post your response. Many are going to find themselves in this position.

 

Sure just stay under the 133% poverty line limit and I'm on Medicaid, not hard to do I never made more than that in my life.

If I did earn more I would just need to shave my income down this year to be under that limit for 2014.

For others they might have hard choices to make either cut expenses or not pay for insurance assuming the employer is not providing it which for many is still the case.

 

This was not the intent of my post. The intent was to inform those that think they will qualify for premium assistance or get affordable insurance through the now non-existent exchanges that they likely won't qualify for assistance, won't find affordable coverage and will find themselves in a financial bind to pay for insurance or will be penalized by the IRS.

I find it odd that there are few replies to my post. I am telling the truth. Perhaps people choose to ignore the truth.

 

In that case people need to know their premiums and such under the ACA which is key, since we are talking a generous 134% to 400% of the Federal Poverty line its a big block of Americans I figure with Medicaid around 70 to 75% will get help. So use this calculator before answering and to be fair even if you get help it seems one should answer since most of you will it seems.

http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx#incomeAgeTables

 

Or they might have to end coverage of the low-cost insurance plan they have right now, and go without any insurance whatsoever!
ObamaCare might help make insurance more affordable for the poor, but it could also take away coverage from lower middle class Americans, leaving millions who had health insurance before now without any health insurance whatsoever.

Should a family be penalized even if they just can't afford the new more expensive ObamaCare plan? What libs don't realize is all this money has to come from somewhere. They're not solving the affordability issues, they're just shifting problem from one group of people to another!

 

Without health insurance you are likely to die and the bills will be subsidized by the tax paying public just as happened to Ron Paul's best friend.

Luckily, people in Republican states such as Kansas and Texas can get get affordable insurance:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CB8oHuu-4RQ


http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/12/dallas-county-officials-support-expanding-medicaid/





Only the privileged who get their medical insurance costs paid for by taxpayers because they work for large Fortune 500 companies will object to this truth.

 

there should of been a public option, but conservatives .on both sides would not allow it

 

even the corps can't afford the rises in health care costs we saw under Bush (+15 percent a year), what we need is a public option


"Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefit Costs " - Published: October 26, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?pagewanted=all

"Wal-Mart executives said the memo was part of an effort to rein in benefit costs, which to Wall Street's dismay have soared by 15 percent a year on average since 2002. Like much of corporate America, Wal-Mart has been squeezed by soaring health costs. The proposed plan, if approved, would save the company more than $1 billion a year by 2011."

"Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid."


.

 

I'm Union and my contract stipulates that the company is mandated to provide medical coverage for all members of the bargaining unit, so it won't affect me in that sense. My medical insurance premiums are automatically deducted from my check.

 

If they can find a doctor willing to put up with the price fixing. I predict the rapid expansion of medicaid and medicare will create shortages.

 

States then need to broaden primary care practice and license more medical providers for general medicine, they have options nurse practitioners for example and fast track the licensing of qualified foreign doctors into general medicine. In my state I know of THREE Cuban immigrants with medical degrees who cannot practice at even that level and Cuba knows how to train general doctors very well. They surely can do basic office care with little issue and all know English and Spanish.

Just get creative on adding these sorts of people to the medical profession faster.

 

Currently the individuals you speak of must practice under the direction of a licensed physician, just as a real estate agent must practice under a licensed broker. Until that law changes and the people you speak of are legally responsible for the care they give; it cannot change. Plus, in my opinion after working in many phases of medicine for over 35 years; I would not let any person without a M.D. treat or direct the treatment of myself or anyone in my family. They simply lack the training and knowledge to do so. If they were just as qualified, why require anyone be a licensed Physician or Surgeon? The answer to that question is obvious. Primary care doctors are actually family physicians. The type of doctors people were used to seeing in the 40s through 70's prior to people seeking treatment of Specialists. Once this happened, primary care and family physicians began treating common conditions and referring their patients to specialists. It was the patients and insured's that dramatically changed the means for which medicine was provided. Their demand that Insurance cover more and their desire to seek treatment from specialists rather than those in family practice led to a good portion of the increased cost of insuring health care. The patient and those insured have significantly caused the increase in insurance premiums by expecting their insurance pay the majority of their medical costs. By doing so the Insurance Companies, as a business that strives to make a profit( as they should) has been forced to increase premiums. With the costs of operating a medical practice rising, increased costly regulations and reduced reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid; providers have been forced to raise their fees. Either that or leave private practice or go out of business or file for bankruptcy.

The claim that medical costs are the biggest cause of bankruptcy is a hoax. Why? Because the studies the liberals site only take into account bankruptcy that "included a medical debt" and not bankruptcy caused solely by medical debt. With my years of medical management experience I can safety claim that no doctor, lab or hospital would cause anyone to file bankruptcy unless the patient refused to work out a payment plan based upon their income and ability to pay even $5.00/month. IMO the medical profession/providers are the only industry willing to work a payment plan that benefits and is fair to the consumer. Obviously the credit card industry and student loan and home loan industry are not willing to do so. Am I right?

 

True on most points and I did not say a LNP should do basic care alone all the time but in many cases medicine is like automotive mechanics that is you diagnose the issue and barring a history of problems standard treatment is known. Your an otherwise healthy woman with a UTI you test the urine, provide the antibiotics and send them home with a follow up. If the same woman was chronicially having them and was a diabetic then an MD is called for maybe working with the LNP for routine follow ups. But with the Obamacare demands they will need to be included.

I did mention foreign MDs lets say the provide has a degree and say five years of practice with an aid agency say Doctors Without Borders would you be fine with them getting a license to do family medicine or are you biased they are not trained enough for that? I did note that as an option letting if foreign medical doctors and licensing them without having to get a medical degree here if the school and education were deemed suitable to practice here under the condition they are in family or general practice. I prefer the latter term since any medical doctor licenses out of a medical program should be reasonably trained for that. I will make this easy for you if doctors from India were fast licensed ,I know they have excellent training there, into such practice here would you mind?

I agree on malpractice I like the Netherlands model if you have an injury you file a claim with the government agency, they have an expert panel review the case and then they issue a sum of money. They also make this know in a public database so claims against providers and hospitals are known. But with the social safety net there the sums are lower so a US system would need to be likely doctors pay in to a central agency in their state perhaps and the claims are settled there. Naturally this would need laws to eliminate medical lawsuits for drugs, doctors and medical providers and related areas but might be far better.

 

I am not biased at all. If they can pass our licensing exams that our graduates must pass before being able to be licensed and have done the required residency requirements they so be licensed to practice. But they have to pass all tests and meet all other requirements our doctors have to before they can practice here because the requirement and education abroad doesn't necessary meet the requirements we require. What say you to that?

 

What are you saying as your post makes no sense at all. My point is and apparently not understood by the majority of posters; premium assistance will not be available to many that can't afford the health insurance premiums even through the "exchanges". There has not been any statement as to what the cost of insurance premiums will be through exchanges. But studies indicate the premiums through exchanges will not be much lower than the premium cost of current insurance available to the uninsured.

Shouldn't you want the Federal Government that mandates you have insurance or pay a penalty tell you what the cost of the insurance they mandate you purchase will cost you? And shouldn't the HHS tell you exactly what the insurance should cover? And shouldn't you have a choice of what coverage you want to buy based upon your insurance needs? Wake up. Most of you that approve of Obama Care know nothing of how it will financially affect you.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you saying as your post makes to sense at all. My point is and apparently not understood by the majority of posters; premium assistance will not be available to many that can't afford the health insurance premiums even through the "exchanges". There has not been any statement as to what the cost of insurance premiums will be through exchanges. But studies indicate the premiums through exchanges will not be much lower than the premium cost of current insurance available to the uninsured.

Shouldn't you want the Federal Government that mandates you have insurance or pay a penalty tell you what the cost of the insurance they mandate you purchase will cost you? And shouldn't the HHS tell you exactly what the insurance should cover? And shouldn't you have a choice of what coverage you want to buy based upon your insurance needs? Wake up. Most of you that approve of Obama Care know nothing of how it will financially affect you.

 

I did not want the conservative individual mandate, I wanted Obama's public option

 

My income right now puts me 56% of the way up to the poverty line, which I suppose means that Medicaid will kick in once I'm no longer eligible to be covered the plans of relatives.

Nonetheless, I think the insurance mandate was a horrible idea. What the U.S. government should do is emulate the health insurance system of either France - ideally, though it may need some adjustments - or Germany, which has a lot less government involvement in the provision of health insurance. Neither approach is tantamount to single-payer, and most health care providers could remain privately-owned in nature.

 

And I'm saying any decently trained MD who graduates from a medical school roughly on par with any in the first world should be allowed to do primary care, take Cuban doctors they know how to train doctors there and they are widely regardled for their practical skills. Hell a special forces medic with two years of intensive specialty training can do much what a gateway doctor does in a pinch and you know this including basic surgery if needed.

Indian doctors are widely regarded for their educational training and practical use of that in medicine. And are you saying British, French, German or Dutch doctors are not trained well?

I would just note we need doctors to treat at the gatekeeper level and we shouldn't be picky since STATES license them they need to set new rules, work with the Federal government on visas and get them in here working as fast as possible.

 

According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report:

400% FPL is, of course, where people in the new marketplaces will become ineligible for any financial assistance. But, as it turns out, nearly all of those people who would be affected already have insurance.

 

I am in this situation. But I know that forcing another to pay for me is wrong. So why should I demand another do it?

So I just go without. Not rocket science really.

 

The mandate was a CONSERVATIVE idea when they were talking about Hillarycare so the Democrats brought in the experts in the plan set up in Massachusetts and duplicated it adding the needed revenue, in fact it should be a hit. No one wanted a public option or a NHS style takeover then or now so they did the best they could do politically I cannot fault them for that. The ACA is better than nothing at all.

 

Conservative Individual Mandate? What planet do you live on? B.S. Obamas public option wasn't supported by the voters, Democrats or Republicans. So If you don't have group health insurance and cannot afford individual/family coverage; good luck getting insured under PPACA and through the exchanges. Hopefully you won't end up paying the penalty and still be without insurance. What are your plans?

 

The public option actually polled very well in 2009.

 

And they can after they pass the Medical Licensing exams that U.S. medical graduates must pass after graduating from Medical Schools and upon completing the required Residency program that our Graduates must complete. Residency requirement are different for each Specialty and License and then the Doctor must pass the States licensing exam just as all U.S. Doctors have to before they can practice in that State. The requirements for those doctors that receive their education out-side of the U.S. have a few more requirements prior to being able to take the tests offered in the U.S. in order to practice As they should because there are major differences in programs offered in other Countries

 

The "exchanges" are a public option. Are you talking about Universal Health Care? The Exchanges will be a disaster and disappoint. Don't know of any polls prior to passage of PPACA and mandate for Exchanges that the majority wanted