Q. I don't have health insurance. Will I have to get it, and what happens if I don't?
A: Under the legislation, most Americans will have to have insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The penalty would start at $95, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. This is the individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Some people can be exempted from the insurance requirement, called an individual mandate, because of financial hardship or religious beliefs or if they are American Indians, for example.
These include individuals who will be exempt for religious reasons -- for example, Christian Scientists; incarcerated individuals; undocumented aliens; individuals who can't afford coverage (i.e., their required contribution would exceed 8 percent of their household income); individuals who will be without coverage for less than three months; other individuals deemed to be in a "hardship situation," as will be defined eventually by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; individuals with incomes below the federal tax-filing threshold; and members of Indian tribes.
In the final analysis, the Urban Institute researchers concluded, 18.2 million Americans -- 6 percent of the total population -- will be required to newly purchase coverage or face a penalty. Of that number, 10.9 million will be eligible to receive federal subsidies to help pay for coverage. Just 7.3 million people -- 2 percent of the total population -- will have to newly buy coverage under the ACA and won't receive any federal assistance to pay for it.
The average cost of a single health insurance premium in 2009 was $4,824. Patients with health insurance provided by their employers typically don't pay the entire cost themselves. For family insurance plans in 2009, workers paid an average of $3,515 of the cost. For single plans, employees paid an average of $779. People who buy their own insurance see lower premiums---though they typically don't have an employer contributing---and higher out-of-pocket costs, according to second survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation of 1,038 people conducted in 2010. According to the survey, the average cost for a single-coverage insurance premium was $3,606. For family premiums, the average cost was $7,102.
Interestingly, Ryan’s plan imposes, if anything, a harsher penalty on those who don’t purchase health insurance. Ryan’s tax credit is far larger than the individual mandate’s penalty, and much easier to enforce. Under Ryan’s plan, if you don’t purchase insurance, you don’t get the credit. End of story. Conversely, the Affordable Care Act doesn’t include an actual enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate. If you refuse to pay it, the IRS can’t throw you in jail, dock your wages or really do anything at all. This leads to one of the secrets of Obamacare: Perhaps the best deal in the bill is to pay the mandate penalty year after year and only purchase insurance once you get sick. To knowingly free ride, in other words. In that world, the mandate acts as an option to purchase insurance at a low price when you need it. For that reason, when health-policy experts worry about the mandate, they don’t worry that it is too coercive. They worry it isn’t coercive enough.
Quote by Raine:
So, I am assuming everyone has seen the Zimmerman video?
Among the many other questions I have, IF Zimmerman was pinned down and shot Trayvon -- aside from the blood that should have come from his broken nose, where is the blood from Trayvon?
Quote by clintster:
Great blog, Raine, thanks! Let me just say that it's good to have a place of shelter, where we can talk about these issues intelligently.
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
So, I am assuming everyone has seen the Zimmerman video?
Among the many other questions I have, IF Zimmerman was pinned down and shot Trayvon -- aside from the blood that should have come from his broken nose, where is the blood from Trayvon?
I saw it last night but didn't hear the details - who obtained it and how? Was that really him, he didn't look like the pix, seemed more muscular and less hair
Quote by Raine:The picture we have been seeing of Zimmerman was from 2005 -- i don;t know which one of his arrests.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
So, I am assuming everyone has seen the Zimmerman video?
Among the many other questions I have, IF Zimmerman was pinned down and shot Trayvon -- aside from the blood that should have come from his broken nose, where is the blood from Trayvon?
I saw it last night but didn't hear the details - who obtained it and how? Was that really him, he didn't look like the pix, seemed more muscular and less hair
The video that came out last night was a police Surveillance video after he was brought to the Sandord PD. No blood, no visable injuries that have been attributed to Zimmerman in the past week.
For the past five decades, Rumingan was an advocate for his fellow veterans on Capitol Hill. He was the service officer of the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc. (ACFV) lobby group and one of its founders.
He helped lead the campaign to restore the full U.S. recognition and benefits to fellow veterans.
His efforts led to the passage of five bills in the U.S. Congress providing more than $300 million in veterans benefits including full medical coverage and $15,000 one-time payment to each surviving US citizen Filipino World War II veteran (and $9,000 each for non-US citizen Filipino veteran).
For his untiring and humble efforts, he was recognized by three presidents. In 1999, President Clinton invited Rumingan to the bill-signing ceremony of the Special Veterans Benefit. In 2003, President Bush asked him to witness the signing of the Filipino Veterans Health bill in the Oval Office.
In 2010 upon the invitation of President Obama and First Lady Michele Obama, Rumingan and his fellow comrade Amadeo Urbano attended the Veterans Day breakfast in the White House.
Quote by wickedpam:
so how did they get the surveillance tape (I'm very suspiscous of sources) - yeah, I saw that no blood on his clothes - when you have any kind of head wound those sucker bleed profusly(sp), no visible grass stain on the back of the coat - I will say since it was a red coat that would make it harder to see in the tape, and your right, if he was as close as he says he was then there is no blood spatter
Quote by Raine:Pure speculation, but I think it was leaked.Quote by wickedpam:
so how did they get the surveillance tape (I'm very suspiscous of sources) - yeah, I saw that no blood on his clothes - when you have any kind of head wound those sucker bleed profusly(sp), no visible grass stain on the back of the coat - I will say since it was a red coat that would make it harder to see in the tape, and your right, if he was as close as he says he was then there is no blood spatter
Sanford Police have not denied the tape. They are actually saying its too grainy...
to which I and ask why the sanford PD doesn't have eye coverage on their insurance.
Quote by Raine:
Hey, MAla (and everyone out there) one of new 4F members on FB is a friend I went to High school with. Don't be afraid to give her a little love.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts CEO Andrew Dreyfus. “I’ve been listening to them and reading the transcripts at night. It’s just such an incredible moment of both constitutional history and political theater.â€
Blue Cross filed an amicus brief on the central issue before the high court: whether the federal government can require Americans to buy health insurance. Blue Cross argues the individual mandate is constitutional because patient spending on health care crosses state lines.
Many Massachusetts residents were surprised by how the individual mandate was described this week in and outside the Supreme Court.
“One thing we’re hearing a lot in Washington, particularly from people who are opposed to the health care law and would like to see it overturned, is how draconian the mandate is and what an extreme example of government overreach it is, and it’s the death of freedom and all of that,†said David Kravitz, co-founder of the left-leaning blog Blue Mass Group.
{snip)
“And I say that as someone, honestly, who was quite skeptical of whether an individual mandate was a good idea and was necessary to get the law to go forward,†Kravitz added.
Quote by Raine:
This is amazing and interesting. I am hoping our beloved Tri can say something tonite about this:Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts CEO Andrew Dreyfus. “I’ve been listening to them and reading the transcripts at night. It’s just such an incredible moment of both constitutional history and political theater.â€
Blue Cross filed an amicus brief on the central issue before the high court: whether the federal government can require Americans to buy health insurance. Blue Cross argues the individual mandate is constitutional because patient spending on health care crosses state lines.
Many Massachusetts residents were surprised by how the individual mandate was described this week in and outside the Supreme Court.
“One thing we’re hearing a lot in Washington, particularly from people who are opposed to the health care law and would like to see it overturned, is how draconian the mandate is and what an extreme example of government overreach it is, and it’s the death of freedom and all of that,†said David Kravitz, co-founder of the left-leaning blog Blue Mass Group.
{snip)
“And I say that as someone, honestly, who was quite skeptical of whether an individual mandate was a good idea and was necessary to get the law to go forward,†Kravitz added.
The Massachusetts state mandate would stand if the federal law is overturned, but that’s little concession for the broad health care community in Massachusetts that celebrated two years ago when the state law became a model for the federal Affordable Care Act.
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:The picture we have been seeing of Zimmerman was from 2005 -- i don;t know which one of his arrests.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
So, I am assuming everyone has seen the Zimmerman video?
Among the many other questions I have, IF Zimmerman was pinned down and shot Trayvon -- aside from the blood that should have come from his broken nose, where is the blood from Trayvon?
I saw it last night but didn't hear the details - who obtained it and how? Was that really him, he didn't look like the pix, seemed more muscular and less hair
The video that came out last night was a police Surveillance video after he was brought to the Sandord PD. No blood, no visable injuries that have been attributed to Zimmerman in the past week.
so how did they get the surveillance tape (I'm very suspiscous of sources) - yeah, I saw that no blood on his clothes - when you have any kind of head wound those sucker bleed profusly(sp), no visible grass stain on the back of the coat - I will say since it was a red coat that would make it harder to see in the tape, and your right, if he was as close as he says he was then there is no blood spatter
Quote by livingonli:
Good day everyone. Today is going to be fun. Roomie has real estate agents looking at the house since she is now thinking of selling it if she gets the right price. Since it's still a maybe, I don't have to think of it right now but it's going to be weird if I have to move again. Maybe the only thing is if I don't have to pay for the cable anymore because that went up considerably when I lost my benefit.
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by livingonli:
Good day everyone. Today is going to be fun. Roomie has real estate agents looking at the house since she is now thinking of selling it if she gets the right price. Since it's still a maybe, I don't have to think of it right now but it's going to be weird if I have to move again. Maybe the only thing is if I don't have to pay for the cable anymore because that went up considerably when I lost my benefit.
Keep and ear open so if she does sell it doesn't sneak up on on you. You can start prepping by just checking out whats on the rental market. Plus I think if you do end up moving make sure you get a place that can have pets and get a cat. Your gonna missing having a kitty if it does come down to moving.
Why do lawmakers make it harder and harder to get an abortion, even in the cases where the mother will die, but easier and easier to get a gun? Do they only care about a life before it is born?
Why don't gun buyers have to follow the same rules women are forced to follow? Wait 48 hours after applying. View on ultrasound of a body with a bullet in it. Listen to the heartbeat of someone as they die of a gunshot wound. Get a lecture from a surgeon on what it is like to operate on a gunshot wound. After all that, if a person still wants a gun, he or she can buy one. Why should buying a gun be any easier than having an abortion?
Quote by Scoopster:Why do lawmakers make it harder and harder to get an abortion, even in the cases where the mother will die, but easier and easier to get a gun? Do they only care about a life before it is born?
Why don't gun buyers have to follow the same rules women are forced to follow? Wait 48 hours after applying. View on ultrasound of a body with a bullet in it. Listen to the heartbeat of someone as they die of a gunshot wound. Get a lecture from a surgeon on what it is like to operate on a gunshot wound. After all that, if a person still wants a gun, he or she can buy one. Why should buying a gun be any easier than having an abortion?
Quote by livingonli:
I couldn't cross-post the blog to twitter today.
Quote by Raine:
and btw? 4Chan can go to f*cking hell.
Quote by livingonli:Quote by Raine:
and btw? 4Chan can go to f*cking hell.
What did they do?
Quote by TriSec:
Sorry guys, I got nothin'.
I believe Hal Sparks said it on Momma yesterday...requiring someone to buy something they don't want is an immoral overreach of the Federal Government.
What about the doctor that will be compelled to provide care without compensation, isn't that just as far as a reach?
(Most, but not all, states already have a compulsory care law, meaning if you present yourself at an ER with a need, and you can't afford to pay, they can't turn you away.)
Quote by TriSec:
Sorry guys, I got nothin'.
I believe Hal Sparks said it on Momma yesterday...requiring someone to buy something they don't want is an immoral overreach of the Federal Government.
What about the doctor that will be compelled to provide care without compensation, isn't that just as far as a reach?
(Most, but not all, states already have a compulsory care law, meaning if you present yourself at an ER with a need, and you can't afford to pay, they can't turn you away.)
What about the doctor that will be compelled to provide care without compensation, isn't that just as far as a reach?
Myth:
The uninsured actually do have access to good care—in the emergency room.
Fact:
It's true that the United States has an open-door policy for those who seek emergency care, but "emergency room care doesn't help you get the right information to prevent a condition or give you help managing it," says Maria Ghazal, director of public policy for Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs at major U.S. companies. Forty-one percent of the uninsured have no access to preventive care, so when they do go to the ER, "they are most likely going in at a time when their illness has progressed significantly and costs more to treat," says Lumpkin. Hospitals have no way to recoup the costs of treating the uninsured, so they naturally pass on some of those costs to their insured patients.
"First, it's true that if you're uninsured and get sick, there are public hospitals that will treat you. But it's extremely expensive to treat patients this way, and it would be far cheaper, and more effective, to pay for preventative care so that people don't have to wait for a medical emergency to seek treatment. For that matter, when sick people with no insurance go to the E.R. for care, they often can't pay their bills. Since hospitals can't treat sick patients for free, so the costs are passed on to everyone else. In that sense, Republicans are endorsing the most inefficient system of socialized medicine ever devised." See Second source.
The chances of working-age adults experiencing at least one access problem due to costs (delaying care, forgoing medical care, forgoing dental care, or forgoing prescription drugs) grew from 18.2% in 1997 to 21.3% by 2006. While the size of the problem and the growth rate may seem small, combined with growth in the population, they translate into substantial numbers of people. The number of working-age adults who experienced at least one access problem due to costs grew from a total of 29.8 million in 1997 to 39.3 million by 2006.