Real Health insurance will be about $80 month for most Americans with Obamacare.

[jonny5]

based on $900 month income and max cost of 9.8% of pay. Over 50 people employer, they must pay most of the costs, and employees dont get dumped.
If employees are dumped and then go to an exchange, it will be cheaper yet. OR if the plans costs more than 9.8% of pay.

$18 per month = 2% max of income allowed. The rest is paid by gov subsidy.

Yup, Obamacare is going to be TO EXPENSIVE!!!!!!! we will ALL DIE!!! (giggle) Believe the GOP lies!


http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf

"The credit is calculated on a sliding scale beginning at two percent of income for those at 100 percent FPL"

"The rest is paid by gov subsidy." - and who pays for that?

 

[jonny5]

Lets try the math a different way. The cost of Obamacare is currently estimated at 2.6 trillion over ten years (and rising). Theres about 70 million tax payers, so thats about 37k per tax payer over ten years, 3.7k per year on average. But thats only the govt side, so thats additional to whatever the person pays in cash for their healthcare. Then theres still medicare on top of that.

 

[274ina]

sounds great. and impossible. what's coming is the safe auto of health care coverage. it will be eighty bucks a month, and the exclusions, copays, limits, and deductibles will take up more pages than an encyclopedia.

i'd prefer expanded medicare.

There is a min standard of insurance that they must cover. There is no room to play games with copays, limits or all the other dead BS.
All that is gone with Obama care.

 

[274ina]

Factory workers are making less than $10 an hr? In every factory that is left? Every Retail store in the country pays less than that also? Thats quite a statement. I can see you have taken the time to back that up with facts... Oh wait, no you didnt... No, you are just trying to ignore me using my own experience in the workplace as a teenager to show that the #'s being thrown around are totally bogus.

FYI there is nothing wrong with people thinking of themselves, its not a socialist country YET.

yes they do. if you look around, it is a fact.

A CON thinking for themselves! LMAO - all they do is what Faux news tell them too!

Starting wage for UAW is now crap $14hr...........but jsut for new people of course.......So even a "good" union job is crap.

 

[274ina]

"The rest is paid by gov subsidy." - and who pays for that?

The mega rich via the .9% tax.
The tanners via the tanning tax.
The mega medical equipment mfg'ers via a few % tax.

 

[Helix]

There is a min standard of insurance that they must cover. There is no room to play games with copays, limits or all the other dead BS.
All that is gone with Obama care.

i'm aware that there are minimum coverage standards. what i'm arguing is that it simply can't be done for eighty bucks.

look, i'm not one of the rabid anti-PPACAs, demanding its repeal. the fierce adherence to the status quo that the republicans offer is a non-starter. however, PPACA leaves the specific employment-based boondoggle in place, and three levels of for-profit entities remain between the patient and the health care solution. it might be a step towards solving the problem, but the PPACA alone isn't going to do it.

 

[jonny5]

The mega rich via the .9% tax.
The tanners via the tanning tax.
The mega medical equipment mfg'ers via a few % tax.

So then what relevance does the cost of $80 a month have, when its only a small part of the cost? I would think the 2.6 trillion dollar cost, plus the direct cash costs for everyone are a far better evaluator. You might as well be saying food stamps are not expensive, because theyre free.

 

[MaggieD]

I'm aware that there are minimum coverage standards. what i'm arguing is that it simply can't be done for eighty bucks.

I don't know what the link says, 'cause I'm just not that interested, but if someone is only paying $80/month? Someone is subsidizing the premium. Either the employer or the Federal government...and the FG is you and me.

Then again, I'm rather glad for that, because if someone is only making $900 a month, there's really not much left over...if anything.

 

[Helix]

I don't know what the link says, 'cause I'm just not that interested, but if someone is only paying $80/month? Someone is subsidizing the premium. Either the employer or the Federal government...and the FG is you and me.

Then again, I'm rather glad for that, because if someone is only making $900 a month, there's really not much left over...if anything.

subsidizing the premium is much more efficient than paying for all of the uninsured who go to the emergency room for care. we're already paying, and in the most inefficient way possible.

 

[jonny5]

subsidizing the premium is much more efficient than paying for all of the uninsured who go to the emergency room for care. we're already paying, and in the most inefficient way possible.

Why should we pay for people who wont pay for themselves? Or rather, why should I pay? You can do what you want. But at what point are we encouraging people not to work by giving them everything for free? How is that efficient?

 

[Helix]

Why should we pay for people who wont pay for themselves? Or rather, why should I pay? You can do what you want. But at what point are we encouraging people not to work by giving them everything for free? How is that efficient?

you're already paying, and you're paying more than you would pay otherwise. it's stupid to deliver primary care at emergency room prices.

 

[jonny5]

you're already paying, and you're paying more than you would pay otherwise. it's stupid to deliver primary care at emergency room prices.

I didnt ask if I was paying. I asked why I should be paying.

 

[Helix]

I didnt ask if I was paying. I asked why I should be paying.

because in the first world, we don't allow people who can't pay for health care to die in the streets. personally, i like that.

 

[jonny5]

because in the first world, we don't allow people who can't pay for health care to die in the streets. personally, i like that.

But the question is why? You're just telling me how it is. Lets just assume it a moral thing. Not letting people die in the streets is moral. That being the case, since humans need shelter, food, clothing, and now healthcare, should there be a federal program to take money from people who do pay for their own survival and give it to people who dont? Shouldnt the federal govt buy everyone who needs one, a house, daily food, clothing, and healthcare?

And since national healthcare is paying for far more than just emergency care, shouldnt we pay for more than just emergency food, shelter, clothing?

BUt, I would still like to be convinced that I should be forced to pay for someone elses healthcare.

 

[jonny5]

To answer my own question, lets go back to the beginning, with Truman trying to convince congress to create medicare.

Truman Library - Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S. Truman

In my message to the Congress of September 6, 1945, there were enumerated in a proposed Economic Bill of Rights certain rights which ought to be assured to every American citizen.

One of them was: "The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." Another was the "right to adequate protection from the economic fears of . .. sickness ...."

Unfortunately he doesnt actually say why except in passing he mentions national defense and economic productivity. He just says its not fair that poor people cant afford something.

 

[Helix]

But the question is why? You're just telling me how it is. Lets just assume it a moral thing. Not letting people die in the streets is moral. That being the case, since humans need shelter, food, clothing, and now healthcare, should there be a federal program to take money from people who do pay for their own survival and give it to people who dont? Shouldnt the federal govt buy everyone who needs one, a house, daily food, clothing, and healthcare?

there are federal and state aid / safety nets for all of those things. health care is more immediate, and has the potential to be much more expensive, however. currently, we are attempting to efficiently supply an essential service with inelastic demand with market-based solutions. the results are predictable : the cost goes up and up because demand is constant or growing. we'd all be better off if there were some basic level of care covered by medicare or a similar not for profit agency which would then have a little more bargaining power to negotiate prices. the rate of price increases in the current system is unsustainable.

And since national healthcare is paying for far more than just emergency care, shouldnt we pay for more than just emergency food, shelter, clothing?

we do.

BUt, I would still like to be convinced that I should be forced to pay for someone elses healthcare.

well, there is this argument :

people tend to accept austerity and inequality pretty well. here in America, we have astounding income inequality, but the rich are relatively safe. people, however, are not willing to accept essential services denied to their children, however. if we ended safety nets tomorrow and let those who can't afford health insurance die in the street, i certainly wouldn't want to be one of the haves. people simply won't allow their kid to die untreated, and most will even commit crimes to save their kid's life. so offering health care to those who can't afford it has a stabilizing effect on society. similarly, we have government so we don't risk having regional warlords. i'll take the US over Somalia any day.

 

[jonny5]

there are federal and state aid / safety nets for all of those things. health care is more immediate, and has the potential to be much more expensive, however. currently, we are attempting to efficiently supply an essential service with inelastic demand with market-based solutions. the results are predictable : the cost goes up and up because demand is constant or growing. we'd all be better off if there were some basic level of care covered by medicare or a similar not for profit agency which would then have a little more bargaining power to negotiate prices. the rate of price increases in the current system is unsustainable.



we do.



well, there is this argument :

people tend to accept austerity and inequality pretty well. here in America, we have astounding income inequality, but the rich are relatively safe. people, however, are not willing to accept essential services denied to their children, however. if we ended safety nets tomorrow and let those who can't afford health insurance die in the street, i certainly wouldn't want to be one of the haves. people simply won't allow their kid to die untreated, and most will even commit crimes to save their kid's life. so offering health care to those who can't afford it has a stabilizing effect on society. similarly, we have government so we don't risk having regional warlords. i'll take the US over Somalia any day.

Then why didnt we have all that pre-1940s? How did the US possibly survive up to that point?

 

[Helix]

Then why didnt we have all that pre-1940s? How did the US possibly survive up to that point?

well, there were country doctors who didn't have the technology to do many of the procedures we have today, but they were generally affordable or could be bartered with.

as for the rest of the safety nets, look at the great depression. the safety nets were passed because they were desperately needed. a depression is much less severe for most people with safety nets in place.

 

[274ina]

i'm aware that there are minimum coverage standards. what i'm arguing is that it simply can't be done for eighty bucks.

look, i'm not one of the rabid anti-PPACAs, demanding its repeal. the fierce adherence to the status quo that the republicans offer is a non-starter. however, PPACA leaves the specific employment-based boondoggle in place, and three levels of for-profit entities remain between the patient and the health care solution. it might be a step towards solving the problem, but the PPACA alone isn't going to do it.

Well I agree with you on al l the problems of the ACA, single payer or universal care is best.
but - COVERING all people is what is needed, even with ACA subsidys, and with the SCOTUS ruling, all unemployed an PT <$10k will still not get HC now.......

 

[274ina]

So then what relevance does the cost of $80 a month have, when its only a small part of the cost? I would think the 2.6 trillion dollar cost, plus the direct cash costs for everyone are a far better evaluator. You might as well be saying food stamps are not expensive, because theyre free.

The $80 is relivant because it is AFFORDABLE to working Americans.

The rich can afford a few $T over 10 years no problem.
Not having real HC in USA is a disgrace.

I would have HR 3200 and price control boards. not the price subsidys of the ACA. But as long as people are covered and get real HC, it is a start.

Food stamps are cheap. They only cost a few bombers and jets per year.......

 

[274ina]

I don't know what the link says, 'cause I'm just not that interested, but if someone is only paying $80/month? Someone is subsidizing the premium. Either the employer or the Federal government...and the FG is you and me.

Then again, I'm rather glad for that, because if someone is only making $900 a month, there's really not much left over...if anything.

FYI Maggie

The gov will subsidize all people between 100% and 400% of poverty. (assuming employer dumps its employees- all employers over 50 people required t o cover - max cost to employee 9.8% of pay)

here is the cost of insurance if you get dumped

Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform

Also note the medicaid for 100% to 133% no longer applies becasue of SCOTUS. Now you must make 100% of poverty to get any coverage.

 

[274ina]

I didnt ask if I was paying. I asked why I should be paying.

Becasue of 1789 in france. thats why........

 

[Boo Radley]

The rest is already paid for by those people. When someone without insurance goes to the ER and can't pay the bill, where do you think the money comes from?

I don't know why this is so hard to see. I really don't.

 

[pimptight]

I hate the Obamacare false debate!

What is actually wrong with the ACA is that it did nothing to address the lack of price integrity in our HC market. I really wonder how many people know HC insurance is the only industry in the US that is exempt from anti-trust laws?

Or what pay for service structure is?

Here is a quick education on pay for service structure:

A doctor only gets paid for providing a procedure, giving a prescription, or writing a referral. This is why we provide the best diagnostic medicine in the world. This is also why we provide some of the worst preventative care in the world. There is no incentive for your doctor to ask about your health, and be an advocate for your health. it is not in your doctors interest to talk to you about diet, or exercise beyond the questionnaire they have to fill out.

Here is an example:

In health care delivery, hot-spotting means targeting key resources to those patients who are the costliest to the system, and spending time and effort to treat them specifically. This is what Brenner did. He didn’t just give insulin to the diabetic who was constantly being rushed to the hospital, he sent a team member to ensure that the patient’s eyesight was good enough to administer his own medicine. The patient got new glasses, and costs came down.

Community Hero Playbook: Health Care and Hotspotting | Dylan Ratigan


As a whole the ACA is a positive bill for the American people.

The fact that Obama spent his political capital in the first 2 years on HC, and didn't even address the core issue in HC, is why Obama should be ashamed of the ACA!

 

[jonny5]

well, there were country doctors who didn't have the technology to do many of the procedures we have today, but they were generally affordable or could be bartered with.

as for the rest of the safety nets, look at the great depression. the safety nets were passed because they were desperately needed. a depression is much less severe for most people with safety nets in place.

But your implication was without healthcare for the poor, the US would be unstable resulting in regional warlords. Yet that never happened. Why not?