While I rarely try to comment on politics, I was recently sent this graphic which outlines the impending changes to the Health Care reform that was signed into law a few months ago.
For most people, health insurance plays a big role in personal finances (sometimes good and sometimes bad). Courtney and I currently paid $138/month for high-deductible insurance (it’s either $2,000 or $3,000 deductible). We basically just want to cover catastrophic-type events.
Personally, I’m not really for or against these changes. I won’t be at any tea parties, but I didn’t cheer in victory when Obama signed it into law. The biggest concern for me is children. I think minors under 18 should be fully covered no matter what. No pre-existing condition garbage. This includes pregnant women, as well.
Beyond children, I’m not such a fan of mandated health insurance. I think adults should have that responsibility fall upon themselves. I would be in favor of having a government sponsored option and very strict penalties on abuse from insurance companies, though.
What are your opinions on the Health Care reform changes?
Leave the sensational politics on the sideline please. I don’t want to hear about socialism, communists, or racism.
I’m more interested in the specific changes and how they may/may not affect you. Do you see these changes affecting your finances (besides a potentially increased tax burden)? Would you personally take advantage of any of the above?
Interested to hear your thoughts!
Note: Thanks to HealthInsuranceProviders.com, a site where you can compare health insurance options, for allowing their infographic to be shared!
Subscribe via RSS
Follow @ManVsDebt on Twitter
Become a fan of MvD on Facebook!
{ 94 comments… read them below or add one }
My husband is a diabetic with some major complications, so the high-risk pools could save our financial bacon. While he has excellent insurance through his employer now, he is basically uninsurable should he lose his employer-sponsored coverage. A typical doctor visit for him runs into the thousands of dollars for a few hours due to expensive tests and treatments, so I am relieved that we will be able to procure insurance if needed.
Do you know of a graphic on how it affects business owners? Particularly small biz owners with <5 employees?
-Erica
I have basically the same question as Erica. Most of the items in the info-graphic will not apply to me anyway.
I am interested though in what exactly the government is covering doughnut holes for? Seems $250 for doughnut holes is a lot of friggin doughnut holes!
lol
No, but I’ll send the creators an e-mail about that. Would be a great fit for erica.biz probably, too!
Totally. I’d be interested in running it with a link back as you did.
I rarely like to comment on politics either.
The one portion that concerns me a little is small businesses that employ less than 50 people will get a hefty tax credit. We are trying to create jobs in this economy. If you are a small business tinkering around the 40-60 employee mark, are you going to try and stay under the 50 employee mark? What about if your above the 50 mark by a little, are you going to cut some employees?
Though it sounds rough for businesses to think of it this way, but business is business. Money is money.
I see a lot small companies staying under 50 by outsourcing or “contracting” with people to stay under.
I always comment on politics so I though I would add my 2 cents. For starters, I am opposed to having ‘mandated’ health insurance – I am a right wing libertarian so I believe in the freedom and responsibility of individuals and families to make their own decisions. Saying that, I live in one of those socialist utopias (New Zealand) where we have a nationalised health care system. While it is not completely free (GP visits are only subsidised and even then you look at close to $100 per visit), it provides decent service to all New Zealanders. You know that in the case of an emergency you will be supported by the public system. I find that the most interesting thing about the debate in the US – the reluctance to go down the path of public healthcare. Countries throughout the world operate on this basis and, for the most part, it works – at least, you could not say that Americans are radically healthier than non-Americans because of your private system.
What this does mean is that private health insurance is relatively inexpensive in this country. I have full health insurance (with only a $300 deductible) and it only costs me $45 a month (about US$30). And the costs of a public health care system? Not exhorbitent – our tax rates rangte from 20% to 38% (although that top rate will soon be lowered to 33%), and approximately 40% of the population pay no effective tax at all. I guess that is the kind of things you can afford when you are not spending insane amounts of money on military operations.
Because who needs to spend a lot on military operations when you can just rely on other countries to protect you should you be attacked.
Late to the party I know, but…
I can unequivocally state that because of our private system, Americans have a much higher survival rate when confronted with illnesses and diseases that the medical profession can address directly. As far as “healthier” goes, that’s based on individual choices that no amount of government control over the medical field can alter – government control over our lives is a different discussion.
We already have government healthcare, it is called Medicaid and Medicare. Why are we not using and correcting programs already in place. What about the health department, I haven’t heard recently that any children were turned away.
We need less government telling us how to live our lives. Competition between the healthcare companies would have been a much better option and less costly to us as individuals and small business owners like myself. This tells doctors and nurses how they can treat us.
I completely agree.
Less government and more competition.
Just a quick point. In order to have more competition, especially across state lines, it would be necessary to have more government intervention in the form of laws, enforcement of existing laws and probably some new regulations to top it off. Not that more competition is a bad thing, but it would take some doing to make that happen.
I’m not a big fan of this plan for a variety of reasons. Among them:
1. It will raise insurance costs for most people. Because of the provisions not allowing pre-existing conditions, along with subsidizing coverage for the uninsured to a degree, of course insurance costs are going to go up. It’s a win for those who have existing problems, but for anyone who is healthy or who doesn’t want insurance (like a student or young adult), their rates WILL go up. Also, because there are no exclusions due to pre-existing conditions, it will end up being cheaper for most people to pay the penalties for not having insurance – and when a health issue comes up – just get on the plan. They can’t exclude you! All this will mean less people paying for insurance covering more people.
2. I don’t like the government mandating insurance coverage, to me this means less freedom. a lot of people will compare this to auto insurance being required, however, there is a big difference – with auto insurance being required to cover other people’s costs in case of an accident. If you wish to gamble with your own life, you’re an adult and you should be able to make that decision.
3. The costs of adding all these uninsured people to the rolls is going to be staggering. They say the taxes are only going to go up for the wealthy, but when it comes down to it – even if your taxes don’t go up, your premiums will.
4. When health care becomes more affordable, more people will use health care. Because of that there will be longer waits to see specialists, and there will be health care rationing. We already have a shortage of doctors, this will only heighten the problem.
that’s only the beginning of the problems in my view.
Some things I think we should do instead to get started?
1. be able to buy health insurance across state lines.
2. High risk pools for people who are sick.
3. Tort reform to help control costs of health care – insurance costs for doctors and hospitals is out of control.
IMO, the pre-existing condition problem needed to be addressed somehow. At the very least “no fault” conditions should not prevent you from getting affordable health coverage. For example: Being born with a medical condition / birth defect and victims of violent crime. Having bad things just happen to you should not exclude you from affordable health care.
re #4: If there’s a severe shortage of medical professionals, wouldn’t the laws of supply and demand guarantee that shortage somehow be filled? And isn’t any temporary negative by less people chronically suffering from treatable conditions.?
The laws of supply and demand would not be free to operate on their own, though.
Let’s look at what such a situation might look like. There’s a shortage of healthcare providers – demand exceeds supply. Because healthcare providers are a rarity (comparable to, say, diamonds) people become willing to pay more money for them. This results in “healthcare provider” becoming an exceptionally high-paying job, and so more people enter the field – so supply rises to meet the demand.
Now, what problems would exist in this model? Well, for one thing, the whole issue we’re (at least in theory) trying to deal with here is people being unable to afford healthcare. So where would the money come from to pay more? And without such increases in pay, what motive would there be for more people to become healthcare providers? We also have to deal with the fact that such a model assumes the supply *could* be increased – so basically, that there are a lot of people out there who *could* be healthcare providers and are simply choosing not to. In reality, there are a lot of skills and a lot of training involved, and there are some people who, like it or not, couldn’t really ever be doctors.
But even setting all of those aside, and assuming that somehow supply and demand were free to operate, you have to consider the time scale you are working on. Let’s say we wanted to increase the number of people becoming doctors, how would we go about that? Well, we’d probably implement some sort of program to encourage young people (high school students, maybe?) to get into the medical field, and perhaps also a program to encourage adults to switch from whatever jobs they currently have into medical professions. We’ll give these programs a couple of years to get established and widespread before we reasonably consider them to be having a noticeable affect. From there, the people these programs have influenced get started down the path to become healthcare providers….four years of undergrad, four years of med school, I don’t know how many years of residency…you get the idea. You’re looking at easily over a decade for such “supply and demand” effects to fix the problem, so really it seems like you haven’t taken into account elasticity issues. And nobody wants to think about health care on those kind of scales. “Oh, I know your grandpa has cancer and there are no oncologists, but don’t worry, 15 years from now there will be plenty of them.”
In a free market, excessive profits are a signal to other entrepreneurs to become suppliers. This is supposed to increase supply and that lowers cost and profit. We are not getting that for some reason.
I have imagined creating an insurance company that rewards it’s clients by giving rebates for healthy behavior. If you take vitamin D when you are sick; If you exercise to stay fit; If you get enough sleep; If you keep your stress down; then I want to insure you. You are a good risk.
But I can’t ask these questions of potential clients. I can’t price based on risk.
The solution to finding insurance for pre-existing conditions, is to get insurance before they are known. After it is known, it is welfare. Maybe welfare is not a bad thing, but it is not insurance.
Save welfare for the needy cases. Don’t run the entire health system as welfare. It is not very efficient. There are no entrepreneurs reacting to profit signals and improving efficiency.
My idea will remain fiction. As an entrepreneur I will avoid health care since the rules of the game are fixed. I don’t want my profits by buying politicians.
I find it really interesting that they snuck that increased threshold on the medical itemized deductions in there. 7.5% of AGI is already high enough, increasing it to 10% of AGI will basically disallow almost everyone from being able to itemize any health care costs.
I know that as expats we were very much against the mandated insurance. We paid health insurance in conjunction with my hubbys work provided insurance through his gov’t job for 25 years. We never went to the doc and our 7 kids never went to the doc. We did have one catastrophic event as well as birthing the babies. We have added up the cost of these needs, and we got ripped off!
The insurance game should be optional to all people. Now we will be paying a penalty fee every year when we file our taxes, since we don’t need insurance and don’t even live in the U.S. full-time. Bummer!
How much was the birthing costs?
As most civilized countries already know, Universal Healthcare is the answer, The insurance is a high profit racket! Health care should not be a privilage in the US it should be a right. THATS what you should be complaining about, Insurance companies post billions in PROFIT.
Funny that this country is so BEHIND Western Europe and Canada.Then again this country is all about the bottom line, not it’s citizens.
It might be the answer for your country. But remember, the US has a bigger population than most countries and implementing a universal health care system will cost quite a bit just in infrastructure alone. And unfortunately when things become a ‘right’ in our country, for some reason the quality suffers compared to private companies providing the same service.
Im sure if our country was only the size of Texas it would be a great idea.
I agree!! The Helath Care Reform should have included a Single Payer System or at least a Public Option! This will give the PRIVATE insurance companies competition and the people options. I also agree that you should have the option to pay for private insurance for additional coverage if you want too. Public and Private insurance needs to coexist. People before Profits!
i’m decidedly liberal (the older i get, the more liberal i get) and share dr. howard dean’s approach, which is to allow people to buy into medicare and/or medicaid. no mandates, no insurance companies (unless you want to), and the infrastructure is already in place. my husband and i know first hand what happens when you can’t get medical insurance because of a pre-existing condition–you lose damned near everything. so i am glad there’s reform of sorts in place, even though it is a far cry from what i think would have worked much better for more people.
I would agree, in theory… unfortunately in practice it is not so simple.
This was suggested and rejected because, while the infrastructure is in place, it is much more complicated then most in the US think… Medicare is a mandated program, with a right to coverage, allowing some who think themselves healthy the choice to not pay into it while still being eligible for care… and would require more of a change to the laws governing it then the new program created.
Medicaid, while paid for by the Feds, is governed by the states (ie: states decide where it goes, based on their own perceived needs) The states would have fought it tooth and nail… and won.
As a 34-year-old cancer survivor who is trying to start her own business, this is fabulous for me. It increases the odds that I will be able to afford my own health insurance, making it more likely that I’ll be able to break out on my own.
With insurance premiums rising 12-18% every year for the past several years, I have no issue with any damage done to insurance companies and think that there should be more restrictions on them.
Car insurance is required — why shouldn’t health insurance?
If we’re socializing health insurance, should we also socialize auto insurance?
Why not surrender some more liberty and further incent people to live AND drive recklessly?
weird comment, buddy. Doesn’t really make any sense. There’s this new webpage called “wiki pedia” that you should check out. Just type in “socialism”
Car insurance is NOT required. Proof of financial responsibility IS. For most, that is car insurance. If you know your states limits, you can go through your state to put money up in a bond and get the proof you need without having ti pay premiums every month.
Health insurance should not be required.
In most states insurance is required. Personal bonds are not considered safe enough… they can be revoked, underfunded, etc.
I’ve yet to see a state that would not issue proof if one had a fully funded bond/escrow account equal to state minimums.
If the states required insurance alone and not just proof of financial responsibility, they would be subject to lawsuits for being unconstitutional.
I’ve worked with many brokers licensed in all 50 US states and all are the same in this regard.
lol. Well that explains your stance on the subject. Direct to customer is always cheaper.. Only the middlemen have a major issue with this. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, 3-5 years will tell us all that matters… If it benefits the American public as a whole as opposed to those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
Anne, with insurance, that is not the case. If the insurance company has a commissioned agent, even if independent, it’s factored into the price for ALL policies, not just those bought direct from the company. It is illegal for them to charge a different price just because of where you bought the policy.
And I have no problem with Universal Health Care. I actually welcome it to a degree. The county hospitals that already provide those services FREE OF CHARGE are getting overwhelmed. What I DO have a problem with is a mandate to having insurance. My family has only a minimal need for medical insurance, and in most costs can be negated by simply paying on payment plans, I should not be forced to choose between spending $8k+/year + hospital bills for something we use once every couple years AT MOST or a $2k/year fine PLUS hospitals bills because it’s more cost effective. I should NOT be penalized because I pay my bills and choose not to get something.
And on a side note, depending on the hospital, it’s actually cheaper with insurance since they get charged less than the public. Recently went through it. Had we had insurance, the bills would have been about $1k cheaper. However, in order to get that lower rate, we would have had to spend an additional $30k in insurance premiums (based on the last time we actually had an event that would have used insurance).
“Car insurance is required — why shouldn’t health insurance?”
agreed. Amazingly confusing. Where were all these people with their pitchforks and torches when that happened.
Car insurance may be required…but owning a car is not. If you choose to own a car, then having insurance coverage on it is a price you pay to have that privilege. What’s more, when you choose to own a car, you create the possibility that you could do a level of harm to other people (via a car accident) that you could not do if you didn’t own a car, a risk which you must therefore insure against. I don’t really see “being alive” as something I am choosing to do, should consider myself privileged to do, or am really putting others at risk by doing*.
*For this reason, I propose that all of our health insurance should be paid for by Chuck Norris, who puts all of our lives in danger simply by existing
H Lee D: sorry I’m very late to the show, but I just started reading this blog.
Auto insurance is mandated, BUT THIS MANDATE IS GOVERNED AT THE STATE LEVEL. This is why there are now many lawsuits in the wings by states…they feel that (like CT) if they wish to govern health care the STATES should be the ones doing it and will argue that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to mandate health insurance.
As an 18 year old, I like knowing that I can stay on my parents’ plan until I’m 26 in case I can’t find a job or pay for insurance out of pocket.
I would have preferred a single payer solution or at least a public option. I don’t understand the why people are so afraid of a government “takeover” of medical care. Since when did insurance companies become our friend? Since when did Americans stand up and support companies that have an INCENTIVE for people to NOT receive care?
I think it’s inexcusable that richest country in the world allows people to die when the drugs, doctors, and treatments are widely available.
I also don’t get the whole “people who don’t want to buy insurance shouldn’t be forced to and adults should be able to make their own choice”. Except, who doesn’t want insurance? It’s like the seatbelt laws. Does the gov have the right to make you wear one? Maybe not. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.
In general, it’s bad for society to have people dying unnecessarily.
Ryan you nailed it, why are we defending the insurance companies over government (who we elected)?
The flaw with this argument is perfectly healthy people (like myself) who really can’t afford to have an added expense in their lives. As it is, without having to pay for health insurance, I find my self scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to pay for necessities and (to be perfectly honest) the few things that make my free time more enjoyable. If I am forced to pay for healthcare, something that may be useful for me in the case of a catastrophic incident, but otherwise unnecessary for me, I’ll have to cut back on doing the few things that I enjoy doing in my spare time.
While for you, a person with little responsibility financially this is a great choice, for those of us who don’t wish to have that added expense in our lives, it is a hardship
But what would you do if you find a lump on your testicle tomorrow “the catastrophic incident”? Are you saying that you are playing Russian Roulette with cancer and if that bullet is in the chamber then you will accept your fate?
That is very unlikely to happen to you… except think of all the other “Eds” in your city and around the country. Someone just like you will find a lump this year (1 in about 7000 if I read the cancer.gov tables correctly). Someone just like me from high school found a lump last year.
So this is the philosophical question… are you comfortable in a system where one person is randomly selected as the one who has to deal with testicular cancer without insurance or should the “Eds” each pay a small amount to cover his costs?
If I want to go eat mcDonalds for every meal for the rest of my life, I have the right to do that. Yes, it puts my life in danger, but it’s my life. I don’t think the government should have the right to keep me from doing so as I am not harming anyone other than myself. Same thing goes for health care.
My general political policy is-> If i’m not harming or affecting others, then I should be free to do what I want.
McDonald’s isn’t the only thing that will cause a catastrophic health problem in your life, I can assure you of that. Just being alive means that you have to take proper care not to let the cost of your sickness be someone else’s responsibility. The reality is that if you are treated, but do not carry insurance and cannot render payment, then the cost of your decision to forgo insurance coverage has to be borne by someone else (me).
Are you OK with being refused medical care should you abstain from carrying health insurance coverage, assuming you can’t render payment at the time of treatment?
And what about your children? Should they be refused treatment if you decide you don’t want to carry health insurance and can’t afford to pay for their hospital visit?
So your options are either A) buy health insurance, B) pay cash for medical treatment before service is rendered (good luck), or C) agree that you will be refused treatment, which could ultimately lead to death. Option D) — let the public pick up the cost of your sickness — is no longer viable.
Your general political policy has a very narrow view of the world, not only narrow but narcissistic. More people need to realize that we are all interconnected.
Alex, you forgot the most viable option, and one I subscribe to. Get treatment then get on a payment plan. On average, it saves me several grand a year to NOT have health insurance and just pay out of pocket.
Too many thoughts to clog up your site, but here are a couple:
(1) To require companies to “insure” against pre-existing conditions is preposterous. Insurance, by definition, is pooling risk. Those who are sick aren’t “risks,” they are known issues. It’s like applying for care insurance after the accident, for homeowners insurance after the fire, or life insurance when you’re dead.
It’s as if lawmakers haven’t a clue about what insurance is or how it works. You all pay more than most will need, for the assurance that IF you are one of the few with excessive needs, the others’ payments will cover you. You can’t possibly form an affordable “risk pool” by bringing in all those who are “the few with excessive needs.”
What we are really talking about is welfare. It’s not insurance. So if we — as citizens — decided that we can/should provide medical care for those who are in the “excessive needs” group, fine. But call it what it is and do it as it should be done — by the states.
(2) Tying insurance to employment is just about the dumbest thing going. If you get REALLY sick, so you REALLY need your insurance, you’ll likely be too sick to work. And you’ll lose your job. And you’ll lose the insurance that is tied to the job.
Just like education funds, insurance should be tied to individuals, not to institutions.
And to mandate the dumb idea of having jobs and insurance tied together is mind-bogglingly idiotic.
The whole think just blows my mind. But mostly because I don’t think most legislators are so stupid that they don’t see the huge problems (hey, they don’t want to be part of this great new behemoth). But they are so corrupt that they will force such a mess on all of us.
Every single person who supported this had an agenda — and it had nothing to do with “health” or “care” or “reform.” It couldn’t have. It’s impossible to “support” a position that is UNKNOWN. And not one of them knew what it was they voted for.
Sorry, that’s way more than I intended to say.
Ryan ~ I couldn’t have said it better.
We have a terrible health care problem right now, but I’m with you — the cure isn’t mandatory insurance or a single payer program. We need to look at the fraud and crap the insurance companies put us through. We also need to focus on health and not zero in on drugs to cure all.
My biggest problem with the health care bill is that my employer took a huge charge against earnings after it was signed into law and said they would look at cutting benefits because of it. A lot of other companies have done the same thing. Not the change I was hoping for.
To emphasize a bit more, average cost for a company is $4k – $8k/annual per person for providing health insurance, this bill will increase that. It is cheaper for to drop coverage and pay the fine than It is to provide care.
And the sick public is happy about that.
Playstead, of course they took a huge charge against earnings. It is always employees who pay for their own insurance, including the “company” payment.
As an employer, the government has made it incredibly difficult to hire employees. If I want to hire an engineer at $60k, I need to have approximately double that amount available before I can hire. Payroll taxes (all the various, excessive parts), insurances, pensions — not to mention the overhead required to manage all the government requirements for each employee — eat up at least as much as salary. (And, FWIW, also make subcontracting and outsourcing much more favorable.)
The government “jobs creation” is bogus. Here’s real job creation:
**For every new employee you hire, we will give a five-year no payroll tax moratorium AND remove payroll taxes for one of your current employees.**
With those two lines you incentivize REAL businesses that already employ and already create value, to hire new employees because you free up money they are already spending ONLY when they hire.
“As an employer, the government has made it incredibly difficult to hire employees. If I want to hire an engineer at $60k, I need to have approximately double that amount available before I can hire.”
Not being American, and not being a businessman I could have misunderstood this, but it sounds like you advertise wages excluding tax? The reason I find this strange is that Americans appear to advertise products at a before tax price, something I find fairly ridiculous.
So, are wages advertised as before or after tax? I’m genuinely curious about this.
Conor
Wages are pre-tax wages, just like prices on consumer goods are pre-tax prices.
Are you saying that before this you offered your employees no insurance? Or that you fear your carrier will no longer provide it? This has the potential to save individual employers money, not cost them… I myself am looking forward to it.
If you are correct (which I doubt) we will know in 3-5 years.
What crossed the line was taking away my ability to choose.
The health care plan is just another tax that diverts money from working chumps to the unproductive.
I like parts of the bill but feel it does too little and I’m not a fan of mandating health insurance. I also don’t like what this is going to do for businesses because I can see a lot of employers cutting or limiting their growth so that they can avoid the insurance problem. But you know, it really is a uniquely American thing to believe that your employer should pay for your insurance (probably because most people wouldn’t get it any other way) and having a universal health care system eliminates the small business burden.
To put some perspective on this, I’m and American currently living in Australia (immigrating with my fiance!) and I’m super stoked by the quality and quantity of coverage here. Universal health care is working in Aussieland and let me tell you–there are no mile long lines at the doctor’s office. And the quality is just as good here as it is at home (despite common American misconceptions of the effects of universal health care).
It’s just as the Kiwi guy said–you’re covered. If there’s an accident, you go in, you get it taken care of, and you go home with money in your wallet. Somethings you still have to pay for things like portions of ambulance rides, but most people (actually, nearly all people) have private health insurance in addition to Medicare which runs around $30-100 a month–VERY affordable. You’re probably wondering why you would buy private insurance if you already have everything covered? Well, private insurance here covers lots of things generally not covered in the US like IVF (in-vitro fertilization), naturopathy, dental, orthodontics, chiropractors, physical therapy, counseling, and massage therapy. It’s no wonder Australians are stupified by Americans who prefer their private-payer system which offers them less at 5xs the price!
And I find it interesting that my fellow Americans believe the only way to drive costs down is to force hospitals to compete without governmental intervention. In Australia, even if you don’t have health insurance and don’t qualify for Medicare, you still pay less than the US with the average doctor’s visit costing $30 and they’re doing it with universal health care.
But there are lots of other big differences like Australia has LOTS of small private clinics (unlike the US) which provide everyday care and check-ups to relieve the burden on hospitals. They also have separate state and privately funded hospitals so that if you have the money and the insurance for rolls royce treatment, you can have it, but if you don’t, you still get treated. They also have more relaxed medical practitioner licensing requirements for immigrating health care providers compared to the US which means there are actually more doctors here.
Whoa, sorry for hijacking the blog here! There’s just a lot to say. The health care hole is a deep one in the US that can’t be solved with just one bill–it’s going to take many to make American health care attainable and affordable for all people.
Btw, I signed up for Medicare here in Sydney today and I’m super stoked! No more fearing freak accidents!!
Did you have to become a legal resident in Australia in order to qualify for their healthcare, or can you receive it while living there on a tourist visa? This is enough to just make me want to move out of the US and become a citizen of another country if necessary. lol.
The one and only thing I am skeptical about is the fact that “children” under the age of 26 can be put on their parents plans.
On one hand, I enjoy this because my boyfriend is bipolar and with that there have been certain hurdles, as one can expect with these things. He is 24 years old, and knowing that he will be guaranteed health insurance until he is 26 is a positive thing.
On the other hand, for the average, well-minded 26 year old– I am 21 and if I am on my family’s health insurance when I am 26 years old… hahaha, I might accept that hand out, but won’t be telling anyone much about it!
I feel things like that infantilize us a bit, you know? I recognize the struggle to get employment which provides healthcare can be a struggle… but I think my point stands.
For the most part, I am pretty pro-universal health care. I don’t have a very firm grasp of the ins and outs of it all, but think that once 2015 hits, we’ll start being able to see the true problem areas and adjust accordingly with future legislation.
As I understand the law, you can only stay on the parent’s plan if your employer does not offer a plan or you aren’t working.
Actually Ryan, after the age of 21(correct me if I’m wrong) you can only stay on your parent’s plan if you are a full time student.
I’m a Canadian, and always have been. I’ve never known health care to be anything other than a federally mandated right of all citizens and permanent residents. I can go to any hospital or doctor I so choose, and it’s completely covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan), I never have to wonder to myself, “is it worth the cost to see a doctor?” It’s a system that works extremely well. Canadians of all political allegiances and all provinces are proud of our health care system. We won’t deny that it can be improved, but it provides an amazing service for a great price.
Can anyone say that they’re okay with someone dying because they can’t afford health care?
Thanks Adam. I haven’t heard an argument raised against universal health care that isn’t based on plain old selfishness, and self-centered fear. They call themselves conservatives or libertarians or common-sensed or tea-sipping (more like beer chugging) bigots or even liberals (especially the intellectual type). But that’s the American way. Success is defined as not needing anyone else and not wanting their problems. We pretend we don’t need migrant workers and taxi drivers and anyone else at the bottom of the social strata. God forbid we’d ever have to wait in the same waiting room with THOSE people when we could be spending more time sitting in leather recliners in our media rooms watching blu-ray movies about people who are even richer than we are;)
I’ve heard a different story from several Canadians I’ve talked to. One of my friends is a Canadian citizen who moved with his family to the United States for several years. When he moved back to Ontario, he sought out a doctor for a simple check-up. He and his family were bounced around for a year and a half without having found a doctor until his younger sister caught pneumonia and had to go to the emergency room. It was only because of this emergency room visit that they were able to find a general practitioner for regular check-ups.
A large majority of serious illnesses are only caught soon enough because of regular check-ups. Who knows how long it would have been before they found a doctor without that emergency room visit.
Ed, I can’t speak for those people. However, I can tell you that the Ontario government provides a service to help residents connect with a family doctor. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/ms/healthcareconnect/public/default.aspx
I didn’t need it, I walked around the corner, walked into a doctor’s office, asked if he was taking new patients, he was, so I made an appointment.
Kortney, doesn’t it seem strange to you that you can get everything covered for the “very affordable” $100 per month max for what you present as basically all non-optional medical procedures?
I mean, if you go to the doctor just twice in a year, each time using an hour of professional services (including the receptionist, doctor, nurses, pharmacists, directly working with you, administering to you, doing your paperwork, everything — a very low estimate), that means you are paying $50 per hour. How do you think you pay a salary, payroll taxes, and overhead (building, furniture, utilities, facilities, etc) with that much money?
Answer: taxes that you either aren’t paying *yourself* (read that someone else is paying so you don’t “fear freaking accidents”) or you just don’t notice that you’re paying them because they aren’t going into some “direct medical payment” (instead they come from myriad small taxes all over the place) and you aren’t paying attention.
As I understand it, Australian medicare is funded by a 1.5% income tax, a 1% fee added on to that for those who don’t purchase private insurance, meds are heavily subsidized by PBS (another taxpayer funded program). The cost of your “almost free” health care is actually approximately $4,518(US) PER PERSON.
For the past few years we have not had company insurance and so our family purchases private insurance (with pre-existing conditions). We have six children and pay about $1,200 per month for medical insurance. That comes to $14,400 annually. Eight people on the Australian system would incur a tax increase (assuming that the taxing was fair and that I had to provide insurance for my own family) of $36,144.
In my experience the people who like government systems either (1) aren’t paying for their own benefits or (2) don’t notice that they are paying for them.
BTW, this is one of the big reasons that a flat or fair tax of some kind is so GOOD for citizens and so BAD for bureaucrats. If you have ONE tax, you see the full impact of all the “free” stuff you get. And you probably find you can do without a lot of it in return for freedom to use your resources as YOU choose, instead of as legislators (who aren’t regulated by their own laws…ahem) do.
The government isn’t magic. Just as with company plans, nothing is free. Someone pays for it. I think it’s fair for ME to pay for MY family. (Did you choose to have six kids?)
Thank you for giving us some real numbers to work with on this…I don’t know much about how things are run outside of the US, and so all these posts from Australians, NZ’ers, etc. were making me wonder where all the money was actually coming from
I don’t necessary agree with everything, but i do think that pre-existing conditions are a horrible excuse not to administer health care to someone. I like that aspect being done away with.
Hey Baker!
Long time, no see (I suppose that’s my fault).
Anyway… My thoughts on nationalized health care are close to yours, though I feel a bit more negative towards it than you do.
The way I see it, it’s just another tax, covered with the name of “reform”. Getting rid of the preexisting conditions excuse for not providing health insurance coverage is good… But the whole “reform” thing is just a bandaid. The real problem is that, in our society, everyone’s only feasible means of getting health care is through health insurance… Which means that, inevitably, some are making off like bandits and others are getting screwed because they’re paying for other people’s problems. Not good.
Hi Alison, I think you misunderstood me on the private health insurance bit. People buy this for the benefits of things like dental, glasses and so they can go to private hospitals–not so they can treat accidents and diseases. Private insurance is really an optional deal which lots of people don’t participate in. As for “optional” medical procedures, I guess that’s for your own personal definition. As a person with six kids, you might consider IVF optional (as would your insurance company in the US) but for someone with cystic fibrosus, they might say it’s necessary. For someone without breast cancer, a breast prosthesis may seem optional (as would your insurance company in the US) but for someone who just had to have both breasts removed to save their life, it might be necessary to still feel like a woman… Private insurance in Australia gives people the options to choose. Like just a couple weeks ago when my fiance’s back hurt–he went to the massage parlor down the street and didn’t pay anything for it. It wasn’t necessary treatment but it made him feel better and able to go back to work that day without seeing a doctor (which is why he pays $60 a month for private insurance through Medibank). People who say they have more options with private insurance in the US seriously blow my mind. I never once had so many options when I lived at home!
As for the tax thing, Australia has something very similar to a flat tax called the GST. Being based on your income bracket or visa status, everyone knows exactly how much they are being tax. Most sit around the 30% mark. If you want to break that down further to figure out what portions are allocated where, be my guest, but if it is at 1.5% of the GST as you suggest, I’m more than happy to crunch the numbers with you. If you break it down, 1.5% of the average income ($52,000AU pa before tax) equals $780AU per year or $716USD. That means per month, the average person pays $65AU or $59.80USD for comprehensive national health insurance. Now, under the Family Tax Benefit Scheme (parts A & B found here: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ftb_a.htm and here: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ftb_b.htm), the GST costs of your 6 children are completely off-set by the per annum tax credit you receive either fortnightly or in one annual payout based on your income (which is actually a really high threshold if you ask me). So, in your house, you and your husband would really be paying for the health insurance of just yourselves but receiving benefits for all six kids. What does that amount to? $1560AU or $1435.20USD PER YEAR FOR YOUR WHOLE FAMILY. That is just a little more than ONE MONTH of your private insurance with pre-existing limitations in the US! What would you do with all the money you saved?!
As for pre-existing conditions and how frequently you visit the doctors office, let’s talk about cancer. What if (and I really hope you never go through this) your husband finds out he has prostate cancer? What if one of your kids gets leukemia? What if your sixth child was born with a cleft pallet? What if you incur a serious injury at work which will require costly trips to specialists five times a year for the rest of your life? When will your family reach the pay out limit for specialist treatment? Will your insurer decide your cancer needs are pre-existing? Will that cleft pallet–a completely unavoidable birth defect–be labeled pre-existing too? Will your insurer cover that many specialist trips and if they do, will they cover all the costs of each one?
That’s a lot of nasty what-ifs but if it happens to you, then what will you do?? Do you trust your for-profit insurance company to understand your situation? Do you think they will care about your other five children and the effect of paying for one’s treatment? Are these what-ifs not the reason why you purchase health insurance anyhow? Because tragedy is not forgiving. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me a heart-warming story about how their insurance company increased their chemo allocation by $300,000 so their family wouldn’t have to starve. It doesn’t sound like you actually have all that much freedom with private insurance…
As for how often a person visits the doctors office, think about all the check-ups babies need, the immunizations your kids need, the stupid trips to the GP for birth control perscription renewals (generally every three months), physicals required by the school for your kids to play sports, and maybe two or three visits per year per child for being sick. And if you or your husband get sick, maybe one or two visits each (if not just so your can show your employer that you haven’t just taken off for the lake on a long weekend). I don’t know your family but my guess is that on average, you each visit the doctor about 3 times a year and that’s if you’re healthy! So which would you rather pay, $14,400USD or $1,435.20USD annually?
If we all do the math, the numbers show that with a socialized health care program, you get more care for less money. I probably won’t have six kids (I just can’t imagine cooking that much food every night! lol) but I’m happy to still pay a bit extra so you can. It’s called a social program and we do it every day all across the US with student financial aid, federal student loan programs, school levy taxes, public schools full-stop, road maintenance through the DOT, the public library system, the military, and the federal post office system. Not all social programs are welfare, Alison, social programs are necessary in order to be a participant in an organized society and I think universal health care is just one more necessity to ensure a healthy, productive and high quality of life for myself, my loved ones, my neighbors and everyone else too. And if we want to analyze that further, healthy, happy people work more hours and invest more into the economy.
And you’re so right–”flat or fair tax of some kind is so GOOD for citizens and so BAD for bureaucrats.” The GST is working in Australia…
This new bill will put the nail in the coffin. It is very simple. If health insurance companies can’t increase healthcare premiums for someone that is ‘high risk’, who do you think will pay the bill? What do you think government healthcare is? It is healthcare paid for by taxpayers. The money comes from us…..We provide ALL the money that the government spends!! So when this thing finally kicks in, and we are all footing the bill for covering every single person that won’t cover themself, look out. But I’m sure that once the insurance companies go out of business and we are completely on the government system, things will just be great. Look how well the government takes care of your money now…..i.e. cash for clunkers, pentagon toilet seats, social security, medicare. At least they can balance a budget right? Not to mention that this is the United States of America!! Either get insurance or pay a fine! Wow. We have stooped to new levels. I have to stop, my blood pressure is starting to rise, and I really don’t want to go the doctor right now. Since I pay my own premiums, I only go when I absolutely have to.
I think health insurance is a basic right and should provide affordable options. However, I’m not a huge fan of it being mandated either. I also think the penalty -not- to have it (what is it, 2.5% of your salary?) will often be less than the cost of the policies. So people will just buy it when they’re sick instead, and pay the penalty in the interim.
I would prefer health insurance to be something like car insurance, where companies compete against each other and you can pick and choose what you want on your policy.
I have found that most people who complain about health care reform already have health insurance and do not know what the other side of the coin is like. Or are grossly misinformed about many Americans who don’t have it, or are left out to dry with their policies. The current system sucked. I had a friend who couldn’t get a mole removed because it was considered preexisting condition. And another whose insurance wouldn’t pay for her ear infection, also saying it was preexisting.
I finally got decent insurance as a freelancer and paid $350/mo for several years. I certainly didn’t have a beef with my friends who got it for $100 a month at work. It’s just the way it was. I worked 6 months a year for more money than they made in a year in order to have “security.”
I agree that we already have health insurance in the form of Medicaid and Medicare. So this new Reform has those with preexisting conditions, put in a pool, and higher insurance rates can’t be levied. But how do we know what is considered “high?” What are the costs?? Or those that use “medical devices” will get a tax added. Being a diabetic and using syringes just to live is going to be taxed. I’m diabetic and not loving this at all. Businesses must offer healthcare or pay a fine and those offering plans worth a certain amount have the pleasure of getting an excise tax. So, what is the incentive for having a business here? Oh, and people MUST buy health insurance or be fined. And FSA accounts cannot have more than $2500 in them. Well, the money in their is yours but because it wasn’t taxed, the government won’t allow you to put more in there to pay for medical co-pays/items. Not a bonus for our family. We use it for all dental/medical stuff. Alot of this needs to be spelled out with real numbers so we know how much this will cost… Hey, I just thought of something. Will there be a ceiling on all of this taxing on businesses and health insurance companies? Or can the government/health insurance co. be allowed to tax and charge as much as they want, whenever they want? Hmmm.
What I don’t hear discussed much in this debate is the true pain of mistakes on the part of the insurance companies: delays, misfilings, misclaimings, mistaken denials, purposefully incorrect denials, and general “death by red tape” (sometimes literal death, if someone is so demoralized by the process that they stop seeking reimbursement and therefore treatment).
One of my main reasons for wanting a fully 100% single payer socialized-as-all-get-out health care system is to avoid all this. How many thousands of husbands and wives have had to be on the phone for hours and hours, over the course of months or years, reading and re-reading Explanations of Benefits or denials, when the love of their life has only a limited amount of time to live? This is cruelty, and a free market solution will not work here because of the exigent nature of illness (when someone is gravely sick you can’t just “shop around”) and the truly massive “paperwork subterfuge advantage” that billion dollar companies have over the single person.
And so, to the degree that this new law oversees Big Insurance on this issue of proper operations–to the degree that it serves as a watchdog with teeth, like with, say, OSHA–I will be partly consoled. But if recent events at the SEC regarding oversight are any indication, I may very well be let down.
kortney, I appreciate your response.
“As a person with six kids” you should know I also had five miscarriages. Infertility issues are not unknown to me. But no one could reasonably say that IVF is a “necessary” procedure. Necessary for some to have kids, perhaps, but having children isn’t medically necessary for anyone.
Of course, breast augmentation is “necessary” for me to pursue a career as a Playboy bunny. But should someone else pay for that medical choice? (If you think so, then send over the cash. I’m ready.)
Besides, I won’t “feel like a woman” until you send it to me. So I’ll be looking for the check.
As I said, you misunderstand the system when you say that your fiance didn’t pay for work on his back. If he didn’t pay — someone else did. Why should someone ELSE pay for what you yourself say is unnecessary treatment, just to make him “feel better.” Is that our criteria for taking other’s resources?
Gotta run. Back later.
As someone who is stuck in the middle of a “cost of health care” issue I felt I should comment. My wife has had minor ongoing health issues for several years, nothing major but it did necessitate health insurance to keep costs under control. Over the last 3 years or so MY portion of the premiums has increased from about $150 per month to almost $800 per month. Late last year my wife was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and after several lengthy hospital stays came out alive, with a pacemaker in her chest and 13 prescriptions to take EVERYDAY! I made about $40,000 last year, she cant work and between the premiums and the co-pays for doctors visits and prescriptions I pay about $1600 per month on health costs…all while making $40,000 per year. I make too much money for medicaid so were pretty much left in the lurch while waiting to be denied for social security disability for her, which may or may not even cover enough of that cost to keep our heads above water (if it gets approved…I know people who are alcoholics and collect SSD and they’re going to deny legitimately disabled people? WHAT????).
I was hoping that with this health care reform this would resolve some of those issues but it looks like through the debate and final passage of the bill it ended up to watered down to actually do anything for people like me and my wife. If you’re poor and not working, you’ll get everything covered, if your wealthy you can afford what comes along if your stuck in the middle be prepared for a major medical event to destroy your financial situation even IF YOU have insurance.
Even with the $800 per month insurance that I pay for it has left me in debt to the tune of $13,000 in unpaid medical costs that I have no way to pay….
THAT is what is wrong with health care in this country…it’s a business and until you make it into something OTHER than a business…were all going suffer.
The current legislation may not make things any worse, but in my opinion it isn’t going to fix anything either.
kortney, you are making the mistake of assuming that because I do not want socialized medicine that I am somehow defending the status quo. But I think you won’t find anything I’ve ever written anywhere that does that. It’s an erroneous assumption.
Australia has a progressive tax system (highest rate 45%). Only companies have a flat tax (30%). Having a flat tax IN ADDITION TO other taxes (particularly progressive taxes) is just more taxing. It isn’t a “fair tax” and it hides real cost from everyone.
You say that my payment for my whole family would be $1435.20. I pulled the $4518 per person number from Australian government sites, too. But for the sake of argument let’s say that you’re correct. See if you can explain this. Let’s just use common sense.
I have six kids and two adults in my family. Eight people. Last week three of my kids had physicals with three more coming up later this month. Two weeks ago my youngest son saw the doctor for a sinus infection. A couple of months ago my other son had an ear infection. On average — in addition to physicals (8)– we have about ten annual visits to the doctor for various reasons.
I’m going to assume no stitches, no casts, no x-rays, no MRI’s, no surgery, no hospitalizations, no serious injuries, nothing crazy or even chronic (even though we do have two chronic conditions in our family) or life threatening. This does not include dental or anything else.
The amount you give will allow $79 per visit. So I’d like to hear how you can pay for salaries, payroll taxes (have you ever run a payroll? do you have any idea how much that costs?), immunizations, supplies, overhead, and everything else involved in running a doctor’s office on that — EVEN WITHOUT INCLUDING THE INEVITABLE BIG STUFF. (BTW, I’d also like to hear what you think a “fair salary” is for someone with a decade of schooling as well as for the nurses and office help. And address how you pay them on your plan.) And please remember to take out the 30% flat tax on the office as well as the individual taxes! And don’t forget that in addition to the income tax withheld, the company pays upwards to 6.85% additional payroll.
Better yet, use YOUR numbers. You say three times per year if you’re healthy. So my family visits the doctor 24 times assuming we don’t even cut a finger. That’s $59 per visit. Go ahead and show me how that covers the costs. The math simply doesn’t support your position.
Again, the problem is you aren’t including the TRUE COST, you are only including what it costs YOU. If you are using other’s resources, you have to justify it. What is the opportunity cost of YOU using someone else’s money so your husband can “feel better”? Have you weighed those costs? Have you even thought about them? When you think something is “free” — because someone else pays — you tend not to CARE about the opportunity cost. But it’s a real cost to society.
You say you’re happy to pay extra. Statistically that’s not true at all. Fiscal conservatives give exponentially more to charity than fiscal liberals. Fiscal liberals are more likely to get subsidized by those who actually work to make the money. So, statistically at least, you are far more likely to be getting way more benefits than your contribution would allow than you are to be subsidizing me.
Just to be clear, that even when we were dirt poor struggling college students, we were fiscal conservatives. So even when it would have benefited US, we didn’t believe it was good governance to take from those who earn to give us freebies.
You ask if I trust my for profit insurance company to understand. What I don’t understand is the dependence here. I trust MYSELF to do my best to take care of my family. Maybe a better question is do I trust the government? The government is the LEAST efficient, LEAST accountable, LEAST responsive system I’ve ever dealt with.
When I have an insurance problem, I can at least talk to someone to correct it. Yesterday we had an issue with my son’s prescription. The insurance company had the wrong date of birth. The pharmacy did an override, gave us the prescription, I called the insurance company and faxed a birth certificate. Done.
When I have a government problem, one answers. I recently got a letter from the IRS saying I hadn’t filed my 941 (a payroll form). I had — and they had cashed the payment associated with it. I have to write a letter, resending all the forms they lost, and wait. They do not respond or explain. If I don’t get another “you’re in trouble and we’re going to fine you” letter, then I probably worked it out. I have had situations where I had to write 11 letters — dealing with multiple threatening letters and one lien — in order to correct THEIR problems.
Who do I trust more? A company that has to compete with other companies or a government that isn’t accountable to anyone and has an endless money stream? Guess.
If you want to talk about the problems with the current US health care system, I’d be happy to, but only if we understand a few things:
(1) a number of the biggest problems are CAUSED by REGULATION (like disallowing transport of policies across state lines and reduced competition) not by the companies themselves
(2) insurance has a MEANING and it’s not the same as giving someone what they want or “need” — if you don’t understand actual risk pooling and how it works (and doesn’t work) then there is no basis for discussion. Again, you can’t “insure” a pre-existing condition.
(3) When we’re talking about “rights” in the US, it’s a very particular thing — and it is that thing that has made us the most powerful country in the world. Rights are not granted by legislatures and health care isn’t a right. (Read the actual constitution.)
debtslave, you’re spot on.
Holy cow, cm. You can’t be serious that you want a single payer plan to avoid red tape. Have you read the “health care” bill? Have you read the tax code? Have you tried to do something as supposedly simple incorporate a business or try to file the forms to hire a single employee.
The government is the lord of red tape.
I’m done monopolizing this post.
Carry on without me ya’ll!
This whole debate is about one thing and one thing only.
Really sick people want help from others so they 1) don’t die and 2) don’t go bankrupt in the process.
Opponents of Universal Healthcare are generally “Well” people who don’t want to spend their own money on other people. Or they’re “Unwell”, but paying for their own care isn’t going to bankrupt them.
So this is really a debate about whether people should suffer because they don’t have enough money or whether other people (taxpayers) should pick up the tab.
Because the USA is generally so far to the right of the political spectrum compared to most of the world, of course Universal Healthcare is going to be unpalatable. If you sit on the Left, Universal Healthcare is about looking after others at some expense to your own standard of living. Sit on the Right and Universal Healthcare is about paying an unfair amount of tax to help those that shouldn’t be helped.
Forget this whole debate about Health Insurance. The real debate should be about Universal Healthcare.
Alison:
Thank you for such a precise and eloquent response. Excellent job.
Great post, I’m still not sure what to think.
The whole idea of Heath Care Reform is so controversial, it doesn’t matter if Obama and the dems had bent over backwards, the other side was going to complain and try to derail it no matter what. I suspect that long before much of it, if any, takes effect, it will get shot down or so encumbered that nothing at all will change. Congrats to all the naysayers.
Okay, where do I begin? I have been reluctant to weigh in on the health care issue because I work for the US Federal Government as a physician. The US Government is the largest provider of health care in America. The programs are Veterans benefits, Medicare parts A,B and D, Medicaid which is a joint Federal-State program with the Federal Government providing the lion’s share of funds for the program and, finally, Indian Health. All programs are funded at tax-payer expense but only Medicare has a specific tax designated to fund that program. Employer-sponsored health care came, ironically, as a result of government interference in the market place, namely wage-price controls during WWII. Employers needed workers and there was a shortage of them. Fearing an inflationary spiral the government froze wages and asked employers to find another way to attract employees. Employer-sponsored health insurance was born. What this has meant over time in the US is that if you have a job, you have insurance, if you don’t you are left to negotiate on your own in the market place. There is something unique in American culture that is not very prevalent in countries that have universal care and that is litigation. Unfortunately litigation and the fear of it are drivers of heath care costs. Malpractice premiums and indeed insurance premiums across the board were relatively low during the tech boom of the the 1990s because insurance companies invested the premiums collected in the markets, the subsequent two recessions have meant that premiums have had to rise and rise substantially. Some states have tackled the issue of tort reform, our federal government refuses to. There is another driver of health care costs and that is Americans themselves. We as a group of people cannot agree on what ought to be covered in any basic policy. I fundamentally do not believe that infertility is a major health care problem and therefore anyone seeking infertility treatments should 1) pay for them out of pocket or 2) buy an appropriately priced policy that will cover the treatments. Many Americans disagree and feel that everything, no matter how experimental should be covered by health insurance no matter who pays for it. In the US we are loath to discuss end of life issues and as a result, the majority of our health care dollars are spent in the last 6 months of life. Americans are shielded from the true cost of care because 1) employer-sponsored treatments are pre-tax 2) employees frequently do not know what their employer’s share of the insurance premium is 3) Co-pays are kept artificially low. For those who have coverage, the percentage of expense born directly by the covered has diminished over time. A study by the Cato Institute showed that Americans tended to act as wise consumers of care when they paid a relatively large co-pay. What I have found in practice is that in communities where Americans have 0 co pay and 0 deductible, they are just as likely to use the emergency room and urgent care clinics for routine care as keep an appointment with their primary provider. In my community one of the local hospitals instituted a $20 dollar co-pay for all people seeking care through the emergency room. They found that their volume of ER visits dropped dramatically. My concern about the current bill is that 1) it does nothing to address cost containment 2) it does nothing to address tort reform 3) it makes it very easy for individuals to opt out of an insurance plan and for health care reform to work everyone has to be invested in the system especially the healthy who will subsidize the sick. There are other issues, but I will stop here.
There are a lot of great comments on here but as we all witnessed this past summer/fall, it is almost impossible to get anything done, everything is political and that really ties up progress.
For me I would prefer a one-payer system even though the boggie man scared everyone half to death, but I am glad some progress was made.
All these people that feel they should not be mandated to buy insurance, how would you feel if you get sick and don’t have the cash to pay and was refused care?????
Also, the healthcare refrom in MA has a mandate I believe that Mitt Romney put in. If the AG’s suing the government for the mandate in this new plan passes will that effect the plan in MA.
Actually the plan in MA and the Obama care are very similar and Romney is a Republican. Mitt is between a rock and a hard place as he plans his run for Prez. He wants to criticize the new health plan but it would be like criticizing his own plan. Always politrics. Too bad for the people.
Two near-immediate results for me: (1) I can keep my 20 year old daughter on my insurance until age 26; given that she has some mild handicaps that mean she will probably always be employed at minimum wage jobs, I’m grateful for the additional 5 years of coverage; (2) Beginning January, 2011, I can no longer pay for OTC medicines with my medical flex spending account–a minor bummer.
Overall, I am so glad our government has finally gotten started on universal health care–for a country of our means and our resources NOT to have it is outrageous.
I highly recommend you read a recent book by TR Reid called Healing America: A Global Quest for Better, Fairer and Cheaper Health Care.
This chart seems to be missing several new taxes:
A new 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services on services provided after June 30, 2010.
In 2013 and for the first time ever, a Medicare tax will apply to investment income of high earners. The 3.8% levy will hit the lesser of (1) their unearned income or (2) the amount by which their adjusted gross income exceeds the $200,000 or $250,000 threshold amounts. The new law defines unearned income as interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties, and rents. Tax-exempt interest won’t be included, nor will income from retirement accounts.
A hike in the 7.5% floor on itemized deductions for medical expenses to 10%, beginning in 2013. But taxpayers age 65 and over are exempt from the cutback through 2016.
I live in a country with universal healthcare and private medical insurance too.In my country (Spain) healthcare is considered a right,not a privilege (well..we pay for healthcare with a part of our taxes every month,but the truth is that we don’t have to worry about what’s covered or not).Because this,spaniards can’t understand what’s the problem of U.S.A with universal healthcare.If I need surgery,I don’t need extra cash to pay it…If someone wants a private medical insurance,he has freedom to pay for it.
BTW..I love this blog
What I like about this plan:
* If I contract terminal cancer, my wife and children should not be left in poverty after watching me die over months.
What I don’t like about this plan:
* It forces this false layer of health insurance companies between the customer and the health care.
I guess I am worried, more than a little. Currently, I pay a pretty high premium for my health insurance. I have rheumatoid arthritis (diagnosed in ’06). Drugs and specialist visits are expensive. We are already living pay check to paycheck, due to the ’06 jolt to our budget. If premiums and cost of meds go up dramatically, this will impact more than just our healthcare budget. My kid will start college in 1.5 years. I wonder how this will impact his college fund? This health care reform really looks like a problem for me. Right now, we are also paying for my son to go to private school b/c the local public school is under-performing and sometimes violent due to busing of kids from other towns to our suburban town. I rely on some of my tax return to cover part of the tuition. Will taxes go up because of HCR? This law could really put my budget into a tail spin.
If your budget is so restricted maybe your costs will go down. I do not know the reform well enough but I know that income is supposed to play a part in the expense of insurance.
If your insurance is employer based, your peremiums should go down as the first phase of tax credits take effect this year. If you pay private insurance, shop around (some will take the pre-existing clauses out early to get a jump on the competition and ensure their numbers don’t fall to new insurance companies that will pop up- volume will keep them afloat) or check into the high risk pool… Your child’s college fund, if in a proper account, will not have an impact on it. If you do your research you should be fine, veryn likely better off.
This health care reform will help so many people, who cannot help themselves. As Americans we should be proud to lend a hand to those in need instead of worrying about how much our tax will go up. Taking a bit of a tax increase to improve the standard of living of other fellow Americans is necessary to improve the lives of others. Imagine if you were in the position of someone less fortunate who couldn’t afford health insurance and was suffering from cancer or a serious illness. Or better yet, a mother or father who had a child suffering from a serious illness but couldn’t afford health insurance. What this comes down to is helping others: would you let a sick child die because they couldn’t afford health insurance?
What it comes down to is taking money from hardworking Americans to pay for a service they may not want/need to pay for services of those who can’t/won’t get it because they want it for free,
Helping a neighbor is all fine and good, if it’s on my terms. This is helping your neighbor with a gun to your head and family held hostage. There is nothing noble about it.
As for those 2 scenarios, there are hospitals/companies out there that will treat them at little to no cost or arrange payment plans they can afford. Whether someone has health insurance or not is no reason to not get treatment if sick.
You think it’s probable that someone won’t require ANY healthcare during their lifetime?
Everyone acts like single payer healthcare means your paycheck gets reduced and you get no benefit. Yes, there may be an increase in taxes, but you’re also getting guaranteed services.
The last paragraph makes no sense. The most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is because of medical bills. Where are these magical hospitals and companies? Company and “no cost” is an oxymoron. Companies EXIST to make a profit.
Hospitals only have to provide emergency care. Once you are stabilized, you are out the door unless you can pay.
Ryan,
There is always a possibility that someone won’t need healthcare during their life.
I’m all for universal health care, when done right. This bill is not it and may even be a step in the wrong direction.
What this bill does is forces me to get something I will rarely use or fine me for not getting it. We’ve had 3 situations needing hospital medical care since our daughter was born. Out the door price combined, $15k. Had we had insurance, it would have been closer to $40k after factoring in insurance premiums and discounts.
I have guaranteed services from county hospitals and other non profits as well as from local practioners.
Many hospitals will allow you to pay for services on a payment plan, and can help in keeping it affordable. Most of the people that file bankruptcy don’t look at all their options. They go to a bankruptcy attorney asking for advice on if they should file bankruptcy. That’s a conflict of interest. Most people don’t realize that options are available. And many more don’t get educated of those options either because they don’t want to or don’t know how to ask.
Some of my clients are in said shape. They didn’t realize what options they had till they met me. Even with high medical bills, they are getting through it and paying them off.
You don’t control healthcare spending by saying everyone get insurance, you control it by controlling the costs of items used.
Before all the provisions of the bill go into effect, look for an increase in taxes as well as an increase in your premiums. And as usual with government policy, only the dead poor and monetarily wealthy will by largely unaffected.
the feds getting involved in anything is bad news. they will screw it up.
any questions?
{ 10 trackbacks }