About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Protecting the 2%
Author: Raine    Date: 03/29/2012 13:19:51

This week among the flurry of SCOTUS arguments was the topic of the individual mandate and it's constitutionality. Arguments have been made for and against it. Lost, once again, in the shuffle is the actual mandate and its cost. Lost in the debate are the number of people that will be affected by the mandate slated to go into effect in 2014. This is all making the assumption that the Supreme Court declares the Mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act Constitutional.

I would like to reclarify what the mandate is. Basically, if you or your family do not have insurance by a set time you will be required to buy an insurance plan or pay a penalty.
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.
This leads to another question, how many people will be affected by the Individual mandate? Let's start by looking at who is not required to purchase insurance. Among the exemptions are
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.
After that, take away people who are covered by employee sponsored health insurance and those that will have been deemed to have the basic minimum insurance such as those on Medicaid, Medicare and Veterans. Let's see approximately how many people will be required to purchase the basic essential coverage -- the Mandate.
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.
2% -- that's it. 2% of people would be required to purchase insurance. Of that 2%, the poorest and most vulnerable are not included. Religious objectors are not included. Prisoners are not included. Small businesses with less than 50 employees will not face penalties. 2% of the population would have to face this penalty should they choose not to purchase insurance. Statistically, they can afford it. When you think about it, the penalty is a pretty sweet deal compared to the cost of purchasing health insurance. According to Kaiser Health:
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.
The idea of getting everyone insured is meant to help spread the risk, thus reducing insurance premiums over the long term. This is important. Compare the mandate and its penalty to the other option being proposed by Congress, the Ryan Plan and suddenly the "Mandate" looks like the best deal ever.
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.


I'm not here to debate whether or not the Mandate is constitutional. I'm not even here to defend it. I just wanted to point out that what is being debated is actually less than 2% of the population that may be required to purchase insurance fully out of pocket. 6% total including subsidization, as mentioned above. This all seems like a lot of hoopla to protect the 2%. Technically, the Supreme Court is debating a technicality. The mandate can help to lower costs but if declared unconstitutional, the ACA has many other very good provisions in it that really help Americans.

The real danger lies in Congress right now.


and
Raine
 

38 comments (Latest Comment: 03/30/2012 00:31:56 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 13:29:37
Morning

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 13:38:06
Thanks for waiting!

What was meant to be a simple blog got a little wonky....

Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 13:47:59
btw, nicely explained

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 14:28:47
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?

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 14:31:32
caller

LAME. Most people on the pill are actually in committed relationship-- those that aren;t usually use the damn condom thingies.

ASS.

Comment by clintster on 03/29/2012 14:33:25
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.



Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 14:35:19
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

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 14:35:58
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.

Danke, Clint.

The thing is, I know that it is all in the hands of the Supreme court right now, I just wish people understood the little tiny details.

So many people want the ACA to go away and don't seem to realize that in its place, we may very well get the Ryan plan. That is a far more disturbing mandate.


Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 14:37:51
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 picture we have been seeing of Zimmerman was from 2005 -- i don;t know which one of his arrests.

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.


Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 14:44:04
Quote by Raine:
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 picture we have been seeing of Zimmerman was from 2005 -- i don;t know which one of his arrests.

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

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 14:44:40
Founder of Filipino veterans group dies in US at 86
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.


Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 14:46:44
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
Pure speculation, but I think it was leaked.

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.


Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 14:50:08
Quote by Raine:
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
Pure speculation, but I think it was leaked.

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.



even if its grainy there are still thing you can detect through shading and variation

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 14:52:30
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.

Comment by Scoopster on 03/29/2012 14:54:03
Mornin' all..

Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 14:56:03
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.



Sure thing

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 15:12:23
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.”

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.


Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 15:14:54
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.”

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.
This however concerns me in a much broader POV:
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.


We would be looking at serious differences between the states WRT to all health care, Expecially medicare -- something that SCOTUS talked about yesterday. ACA expands Medicare a lot.


Comment by BobR on 03/29/2012 15:58:47
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
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 picture we have been seeing of Zimmerman was from 2005 -- i don;t know which one of his arrests.

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

Apparently CBS simply asked for it via a FOIA request

Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 16:15:28
This is cool - anyone want to see some pix of the street I lived on for a couple of years as a kid? These homes have kinda stuck with me all these years.

Lindenwold Terrace

Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 16:19:55
You know if Zimmerman now comes out with old "injuries" or doctors notes I'm going to be very suspicious.

Comment by livingonli on 03/29/2012 16:35:57
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.

Comment by wickedpam on 03/29/2012 17:45:41
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.

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 18:05:04
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.

Bold face mine... Mala is right on this one.

Comment by Scoopster on 03/29/2012 18:12:18
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?




Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 18:28:43
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?


Aflucking woman!


Comment by livingonli on 03/29/2012 18:49:50
I couldn't cross-post the blog to twitter today.

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 20:30:54
Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 20:32:32
and btw? 4Chan can go to f*cking hell.

Comment by BobR on 03/29/2012 20:35:20
Quote by livingonli:
I couldn't cross-post the blog to twitter today.

There seems to be a bug in the Share This! code that doesn't handle double-quotes in the blog description very well. I will take a look at this in the next day or two and see if I can resolve it.

Comment by livingonli on 03/29/2012 20:53:45
Quote by Raine:
and btw? 4Chan can go to f*cking hell.

What did they do?

Comment by Raine on 03/29/2012 22:51:46
Quote by livingonli:
Quote by Raine:
and btw? 4Chan can go to f*cking hell.

What did they do?
Click the link I posted at 4:30.




Comment by TriSec on 03/29/2012 23:29:37
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.)


Comment by BobR on 03/30/2012 00:07:59
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.)

I look at this the same way I look at the tax break for a house mortgage. The government isn't forcing you to buy a house, but if you don't, you pay higher taxes than someone that does. I see the healthcare "mandate" the same way.

Comment by Raine on 03/30/2012 00:11:19
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?

Have you not read a thing that I have written for the past three years? It's a immoral overreach to ask 2% of our population to assist in spreading the health risk around in order to reduce the cost of health care? I am really stunned here. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Tri -- this sounds like a debate from a GOP'r... I really have to be honest here.

Especially that last sentence. That is a direct talking point form any number of republicans, Tri. As a matter of fact, that has been thier main reason for opposing the ACA since its inception.


Comment by Raine on 03/30/2012 00:21:51
Where does this question come from?
What about the doctor that will be compelled to provide care without compensation, isn't that just as far as a reach?


Doctors are not going to be asked to provide care without compensation -- the ACA is about health insurance. Why would you think a doctor is going to be asked to provide care without compensation?



Comment by Raine on 03/30/2012 00:24:11
We pay for Medicare Medicaid and Social Security -- is that a moral over-reach?

Comment by Raine on 03/30/2012 00:31:56
and as far as the ER's.. I would like to send you here.

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.