So, if someone chooses the $95 annual penalty instead of buying insurance..... (Congress, borders)

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Do you really think that the poor are not going to be treated? If your fine is $95 that means you make $9500 a year or less.

The poor are all ready covered through medicaid, medicare, chips...ect. Have you not figured that out yet?

[atgss]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

You will receive emergency room care. Your still responsible for the bill, and it'll go to collections if you don't pay.

"I don't speak innnnglish, I'm from "x" country (in their lingo)." - This will be the next way to get out of paying.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Thank you for that.

But my question is should they be treated the same as someone who actually took responsibility and purchased a product.

For instance....a 27 year old pays the fine and comes down with cancer.....should they be treated?

Doesn't matter if they should be. They WILL be, because they cannot be denied insurance for a pre-existing condition.

I have a question as well - before ObamaCare, if a 27 year old had no insurance and came down with cancer, did they get treated? The answer was yes.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Thank you for that.

But my question is should they be treated the same as someone who actually took responsibility and purchased a product.

For instance....a 27 year old pays the fine and comes down with cancer.....should they be treated?

Unless this person is destittute then there is no treatment options for them. they would have to get rid of all assets to qualify for government heathcare.

There is no private insurance that will give free heathcare to this individual.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by bUU

The lack of knowledge about the things right-wingers spew vitriol about never ceases to amaze me.

EMTALA was signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986. It ensures that acutely ill patients who are uninsured or underinsured receive appropriate emergency care and prevents hospitals from refusing to treat certain populations of patients who present to the emergency department. It is unaffected by ACA.

ACA is aimed at reducing the incidence of illnesses getting to the point where they are acute, at which point they are most expensive to treat.

Well stated. The cost of treating people who can't pay is a component of the price we all pay.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

The poor are all ready covered through medicaid, medicare, chips...ect. Have you not figured that out yet?

Medicare is not means tested.
Everyone who pays FICA gets medicare regardless of income.

[evilnewbie]

The $95 is the minimum... that would mean you would have to earn less than $10,000 per year to pay that penalty, the penalty gets larger the more you make (which is 99.9% of the people that actually work).......

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Medicare is not means tested.
Everyone who pays FICA gets medicare regardless of income.

But Medicaid IS, and a 27 year old would not qualify for Medicare anyway.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by ringwise

Doesn't matter if they should be. They WILL be, because they cannot be denied insurance for a pre-existing condition.

I have a question as well - before ObamaCare, if a 27 year old had no insurance and came down with cancer, did they get treated? The answer was yes.

I stand corrected on my above comment. you are correct if he can afford the insurance.

before ACA my senario was true.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Medicare is not means tested.
Everyone who pays FICA gets medicare regardless of income.

Which means the poor also qualify. It was used as an example...not to say it was for only the poor.