Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if you or your child are diagnosed with leukemia tomorrow? That's $1 million dollars for the two years of chemotherapy needed - more if you require a bone marrow/stem cell transplant. Do you have that in the bank, ready to self insure?
I went to a young adult cancer conference today and gave a friend a ride home. In the car, we were discussing how much our respective treatments for Hodgkin's lymphoma and ALL cost. From diagnosis to the end of my 6 months of chemo, my treatment cost $250,000 and 3 years later is up to $500,000 due to scans and treatment for long term side effects. She is finishing her year of chemo tomorrow (which has cost over $500,000 - over $36,000 for EACH chemo infusion) and then will begin a year of maintenance chemo which will likely be another $500,000. Those figures include weekly doctors appointments (and the weekly blood work that goes along with it), medications, intermittent hospital visits for infections, fevers, and other complications during treatment.
She just had her 22nd birthday and I'm 26. **** happens.
And sometimes it happens so fast, you can't do anything to mitigate the damages. Could I have left the country for 6 months for treatment? Theoretically, though I had to work full time to pay for what my insurance didn't cover. With ALL, she walked into the ER because she was really short of breath and had to start her year of chemo THAT NIGHT. Good luck waiting until the next open enrollment period. If either of us had to wait for open enrollment periods, we'd be dead.
Very, very, very few people could self-insure for instances like ours. Do you really feel confident it won't be you, your spouse, or your child? Because no one in either my nor my friend's biological families had cancer. We were young. We were healthy. And then we got sick in the blink of an eye.
If one of you requires medical care that you cannot afford to pay, the rest of your community will pay for it.
No, that's what the ACA does. If I or my husband become ill and unable to work our church family will do what is necessary to keep us going, just as we do them when they're sick and unable to work.
Who's going to pay if one of you gets sick? If your premium is only $18 a month, you have to be low income and I would assume don't have hundreds of thousands laying around?
Which amendment does it violate, btw?
Our church family will pay if one of us gets sick, just like we do when they get sick.
(It violates the Origination Clause as it originated in the Senate for one. It imposes a tax on the people but calls it a "penalty")
I'm the opposite. I couldn't WAIT to sign up for Obamacare.
I have a complex pre-existing condition. But I was tied to a job I was tired of, and STUCK in, with a one-hour commute each way. ONLY because of health insurance. My job wouldn't let me transfer to a location closer to me, because it's harder to fill positions where I was.
As soon as Obamacare took effect, I purchased a policy, quit my job, and took two part-time jobs - one with the geriatric population in the day, and with the pediatric population in the evening.
The insurance is on-par with what I had with my former FT job. And I'm much happier career-wise, with a shorter commute and more flexible schedule. So it has worked out for me.
I'm the opposite. I couldn't WAIT to sign up for Obamacare.
I have a complex pre-existing condition. But I was tied to a job I was tired of, and STUCK in, with a one-hour commute each way. ONLY because of health insurance. My job wouldn't let me transfer to a location closer to me, because it's harder to fill positions where I was.
As soon as Obamacare took effect, I purchased a policy, quit my job, and took two part-time jobs - one with the geriatric population in the day, and with the pediatric population in the evening.
The insurance is on-par with what I had with my former FT job. And I'm much happier career-wise, with a shorter commute and more flexible schedule. So it has worked out for me.
I don't think it makes much difference for me. My rates have gone up some, but they were probably going to go up anyway.
But I think they are going to go up quite a bit soon if we don't get some kind of rationing system set up.
First I want to say that I'm a Democrat and like President Obama very much.
BUT - I cannot tolerate being FORCED to give free money to the insurance megaliths by participating in the Affordable Care Act. I've always saved for and paid for health care with my own money, and want to continue to do so.
I've been waiting and thinking. Then my local paper published the following regarding the fine for not participating. It's only $95 or 1% of your taxable income!
So why would anyone even WANT to participate unless you need to feed off the federal trough? For me the fine will be less than $400. Compare that to shelling out about $6500 a year for NOTHING, and having to pay a $10,000 deductible on top of that if anything major were to happen to me. And that doesn't even include anything for optical or dental care!
I've been wondering how they're going to hunt down and identify all of us who don't have insurance, anyway. Will they force doctors and hospitals to rat us out?
Anyway, I see no reason to sign up for health insurance per the "Affordable Care Act". Are any of you out there joining me in my act of civil disobedience?
No I am not. I am reaping the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.
By 2016, if everyone that does not have coverage has not already signed up - the law will remain in effect (right or wrong depending on your political ideology) and will be enforced.
However - Once it becomes obvious that there are still people that have not signed up for the ACA and/or do not have any other coverage:
Another law will be passed that requires hospitals and medical care providers to charge anywhere from a 200 - 300% increased price for health care to people that show up without insurance - basically a surcharge that goes to the government. They will be billed accordingly and as a result have to pay the inflated bill which will/would take into account all of the money they saved by not paying for medical insurance. Those that do not pay will have their credit destroyed and/or face wage garnishments, liens on property, etc and essentially be regulated into being a second class citizen, at least financially. It will impact their entire lives economically and thus 'force' them to eventually sign up, at least as they start to get older. This will affect those with moderate to significant assets and income, the most that choose not to get health insurance. Those that previously got healthcare for free and lacked the ability to pay, always will.
For those that are going to claim that it cannot work or be done that way: regarding those without insurance by 2016 having to pay (be billed) substantially more for medical care they receive - FYI, it has already been done for years in terms of hospitals billing people for way more for services and care if/when they do not have insurance then if the costs associated with their care are being billed to an insurance company. It is already done today so that a hospital can write off a larger loss or send a larger bill to a collection agency since someone without insurance rarely has the ability to pay a large amount to begin with. Similar to an ER bill that would normally result in an insurance company being billed about $6,000, actually being close to $12,000 if the hospital realizes that the person does not have insurance.
It will become the new normal for those that choose not to get coverage, and thus indirectly force them into securing coverage: of course based on income and ability to pay - so there will still be those paying directly to subsidize others that cannot 'afford' healthcare.
And slowly Rome continues to burn. . . . . .
Sky-O
Ridiculous post.
Hospitals and drs aren't going to "demand" money from those who cannot pay for treatment. The ER by law has to treat a patient. This has zilch to do with ACA. My brother worked as an ER surgeon in NYC and yes, those treated from other countries, i.e. illegals, were still treated. bcs its the law. And they weren't hounded by "collection agencies". LOL.
Not saying ACA is perfect but the costs of American medical care ARE unsustainable.
No, that's what the ACA does. If I or my husband become ill and unable to work our church family will do what is necessary to keep us going, just as we do them when they're sick and unable to work.
So if you are diagnosed with leukemia tomorrow, your church is willing to shoulder the $1 million dollar medical burden AND help keep you afloat due to lost wages?
In my synagogue, we'd wish you well and offer support in the form of food and comfort, but point out that you were IRRESPONSIBLE for not taking advantage of the opportunities available to you. That's a horrible burden you are putting on the families in your church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
untrue
