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.
Why is it automatically assumed that all these companies that currently provide insurance to their employees will suddenly decide to drop it and pay the fine instead? Currently, they could drop their insurance programs and pay no fines, yet they keep the programs- so why would they suddenly drop the coverage??
Um, what? are you speaking about small Companies? because there are by far way too many Companies going out of business due to lack sales. There are more employers today who cannot afford to provide Insurance for their employees. That is why they would be better off to pay the fine and because the fine would be, I'm thinking, much less than paying Insurance premiums for all their employees. Remember all the Americans leaving the US to get medical care outside the US because they didn't have Insurance and couldn't afford it? Their employers can't afford it either. Although I see no reason why the big corps. can't.
It will create 100,000 new federal, state and local jobs to manage Obama-care.
It will create higher taxes to pay people to do those jobs as well.
You'll pay for that too.
Jobs created in the private business world contribute to the individual, jobs created in government do too, at the expense of everyone else though.
How much can the government just keep taking, and taking, and taking more out of our paychecks.
Before you know it they will demand more than we even earn.
It's already a huge chunk of what we work hard for and ever rising.
How is it less choice? Can't I continue going to the same clinic as before? Or choose a cheaper one?
The less choice comes in the HHS rules as far as what is an Obamacare approved plan. I don't want a plan that pays for every test and procedure. I want a plan that allows me to pay for the small stuff but keeps me from going bankrupt if the worst happens. But the all knowing Democrats do not allow me this option.
In addition, if 30,000,000 people are added to the rolls to get all those "free" tests and procedures, how long will I have to wait for an appointment? This is a major concern expressed by many - not enough medical professionals to handle the additional load. Looks like less choice to me.
Why is it automatically assumed that all these companies that currently provide insurance to their employees will suddenly decide to drop it and pay the fine instead? Currently, they could drop their insurance programs and pay no fines, yet they keep the programs- so why would they suddenly drop the coverage??
Quote:
In the four alternative scenarios discussed below, the ACA changes the number of people who will obtain health insurance coverage through their employer in 2019 by an amount that ranges from a reduction of 20 million to a gain of 3 million relative to what would have occurred otherwise. Compared with the March 2012 baseline projections for that year, the estimates under those alternative scenarios range from an additional decline of 14 million to a gain of 8 million people with employment-based coverage. In the scenario with the greatest additional reduction in employment-based coverage owing to the ACA (14 million), the number of enrollees who purchase health insurance through insurance exchanges is 9 million higher, the number of enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP is 2 million higher, and the number of uninsured is 2 million higher, than in the baseline projections.
In the March 2012 baseline projections, the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA have an estimated net cost to the federal government of $1,252 billion over the eleven-year period from 2012 through 2022. Under the four alternative scenarios examined here, that projected net cost ranges from $1,170 billion to
$1,297 billion, representing differences relative to the baseline projections that range from a decrease of $82 billion (or 7 percent) to an increase of $45 billion (or 4 percent). The scenarios with the larger estimated costs are the ones in which additional reductions in employment-based coverage relative to the baseline projections are concentrated among low-income workers. In contrast, the scenario
with the largest reduction in employment-based coverage actually lowers the cost of the ACA to the federal government relative to the baseline projections because the extra costs for Medicaid and exchange subsidies are more than offset by the increased revenues resulting from higher taxable compensation among workers who receive higher wages in lieu of health benefits.
Yeah, you read that last sentence right. The CBO expects that if your employer drops your health insurance they'll pay you more so the Federal Government will be collecting more in revenues. I don't know whether to laugh or weep...
I'd imagine the scenario going something like this:
Employer: Well, Sally, we're going to have to stop covering you with health insurance.
Sally: Why?
Employer: It's going to be cheaper to just pay the fine but, wait, it's not entirely all bad.
Sally: What do you mean it's not all bad? I have gonosyphaherpelaids.
Employer: Well you used to cost us something like $8,000/year for health insurance, dental and vision. Now you'll only cost us $750 -$1500/year so we're going to give you a $3.13/ hr - $3.50/hr raise!
Sally: Well! That more than makes up for it then and now I can get into a new tax bracket so that I can pay even more taxes for my bestest, newest friend, Obamaius Julius Caesar!
The less choice comes in the HHS rules as far as what is an Obamacare approved plan. I don't want a plan that pays for every test and procedure. I want a plan that allows me to pay for the small stuff but keeps me from going bankrupt if the worst happens. But the all knowing Democrats do not allow me this option.
In addition, if 30,000,000 people are added to the rolls to get all those "free" tests and procedures, how long will I have to wait for an appointment? This is a major concern expressed by many - not enough medical professionals to handle the additional load. Looks like less choice to me.
After all, those 30,000,000 people are not as worthy of access to preventive care, huh?
After all, those 30,000,000 people are not as worthy of access to preventive care, huh?
Where did I say that? Those 30,000,000 will be waiting as well. How many people whose stage 2 cancer with early symptoms will be waiting in line while the folks who just need the "all clear" get their "free" tests?
Since you brought up statistics, the low odds of a 32 year old running up hundreds of thousands in medical bills are exactly what makes insurance appealing. The pooled resources can easily pay the costs, at a modest cost to the individual. However, if you are too poor to pay an insurance premium then you are certainly far too poor to pay for a major accident, a life threatening illness, or just an acute infection. I know a guy who at about 32 developed severe diverticulitis. They had to remove part of his colon. The guy is an ultra runner, with a physique like Adonis. It was tens of thousands of dollars. If you could not pay the bill for such an acute event, should we all eat the cost? How is that ethical?
This is absolutely correct - if you are too poor to afford insurance, you're certainly too poor to get sick!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
That's not the case in NJ. If you have a low income and cannot afford health insurance you are covered by NJ charity care which requires all hospitals to provide free or reduced services. Chances of you going in debt are minimal unless you have high income and no health insurance.
Perhaps in the hospital. Do they pay for all out-pt. care, too? Here in CO you have to be practically destitute to get medicaid if you are not a pregnant woman or a child.
Where did I say that? Those 30,000,000 will be waiting as well. How many people whose stage 2 cancer with early symptoms will be waiting in line while the folks who just need the "all clear" get their "free" tests?
Well, I don't think Hospital people are as "well trained" as, say Ariz police, in being able to just look at someone and "know" all about them.
Premiums will most likely decrease since this bill will require more Americans to be insured, or face the penalty for not having insurance.
We have already heard from the insurance giants that they will increase because now we include everything imaginable in the policy that you may have wanted to exclude...pregnancy, etc. We will see and then be back online to discuss....provided the bill/tax is not repealed soon.
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.
