• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who funds health care for those who pay the penalty/tax?

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,844
Reaction score
20,509
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I haven't seen this issue addressed nor been able to research an answer so I'll ask the question here. It's relevant, in my view, because even with the full implementation of the ACA as is, the CBO estimates there will still be about 30 million Americans without health insurance.

When a healthy young person, as an example, chooses not to buy health insurance and instead pays the federal government penalty/tax, does the federal government then assume defacto responsibility for that young person's emergency health care needs, when they need it? Can hospitals, as an example, petition and/or sue the federal government for some of the costs they incur as a result of tending to an uninsured person because the federal government, through legislation, sanctions that person being unisured?

Likewise, if the above isn't true, does the legislation require that all penalty/tax monies paid to the federal government must be retained/dedicated in some way to the provision of healthcare or does the penalty/tax money just go into the federal government's revenue black hole? It's not a huge sum, but it has to be several $billions.
 

As I understand it, hospitals still have the requirement to provide emergency treatment and eat the cost. They can not sue the govt for reiimbursement. However, the govt does give money to hospitals (though not necessarily as compensation for emergency rooms).

As far as where the penalties go, I believe they go into the general treasury.
 

This has already been the case for 30+ years. Nothing changed in that regard. The only difference is that the federal government recoups at least a portion of these cost with the penalty. It's a net win.
 
Taxpayers. Who else is there ?
So nothing changes.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This has already been the case for 30+ years. Nothing changed in that regard. The only difference is that the federal government recoups at least a portion of these cost with the penalty. It's a net win.
Click to expand...

Excuse me but what do you mean recoups a portion of these costs? What costs... if they get healthcare at our emergency room... I eat the cost.. not the government.
 
It ends up being paid by the same people that have always paid it. Us.
 
jaeger19 said:
How do they lose a little bit less?
Click to expand...

Once you rack up thousands of dollars of medical bills then you become eligible for Medicaid. The state/federal government pays a portion of those bills. The specific non-paying customer receives a receipt showing a balance due of $0.00. The state/federal government will still do this. The only difference is that the federal government will be receiving a $50 penalty from that specific non-paying customer.

Are you suggesting that all non-paid medical bills are rolled into the next year expenses and the cost is distributed to the customers for the following years? That doesn't change either. The only difference is that the government has $50 more to work with.

Does that make sense?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This has already been the case for 30+ years. Nothing changed in that regard. The only difference is that the federal government recoups at least a portion of these cost with the penalty. It's a net win.
Click to expand...

Really? The federal government, prior to the ACA, reimbursed hospitals for any care they gave to uninsured individuals who entered their facilities? Sorry, I don't believe it, but I'm willing to have a look at any documented proof you may have and I'm well able to acknowledge it and apologize if my suspicions are unfounded.
 

Will you settle for my personal medical bills that I never paid? and a receipt that I received later with a $0.00 balance?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Will you settle for my personal medical bills that I never paid? and a receipt that I received later with a $0.00 balance?
Click to expand...

I'm betting the hospital ate the bill as a cost of doing business - I'd be shocked if the federal government was cutting checks to hospitals to make them whole.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm betting the hospital ate the bill as a cost of doing business - I'd be shocked if the federal government was cutting checks to hospitals to make them whole.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of Medicaid? Have you ever heard of Medicare?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Have you ever heard of Medicaid? Have you ever heard of Medicare?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have - those are both health insurance plans based on income and/or age. Anyone who qualifies for Medicaid or Medicare are insured. We were talking about the uninsured - specifically, I referenced a young, rich person who refused to buy insurance under the ACA and was forced to pay the penalty.
 

You are right.
 

No, the govt only pays a share of the unreimbursed care hospitals provide but I don't think vasuda said the govt pays for all of it. At least he didn't say that in the post you just quoted.

The govt pays just a share, and now some of that money will be offset by the fines paid by those who go without insurance though the fines don't go into a special fund devoted to pay for unreimbursed care
 

I don't know the details of how it works, I simply assume that in the US, unlike in Canada, hospitals are private businesses for the most part and as such they have business expenses, such as revenue losses, that they can claim against profit when filing business taxes. In that way, they are, in effect, subsidized by the government who forgoes tax revenue with tax deductibles.
 

some hospitals are private and some are public. Some are for profit, and others are not. However, no matter which they are, they have to find a way to pay for the care that people don't pay them for.

Some of that money is made up with money from the govt (fed, state, and local), some of which I believe is disbursed based on a formula which is tied to the economics of the community they serve. The rest is made up by adding it onto the bills of people who can afford to pay
 
dogtowner said:
No they lose far more. Actual costs go up plus there us the.massive jew buorcracy to pay for.
Click to expand...

That's some spelling bee gold right there.
 

I would guess that most young people don't have emergency medical treatment needs. They're young. They're healthy. I know I didn't. I had some crowns for my teeth, but that's not medical care. I had checkups a few times, gynecologist. I paid out of pocket. That was a long time ago, though. When a lot of people didn't have health ins., so provider costs were much lower. (Ironically, a lot of people having insurance causes health care provider rates to rise dramatically.)

I would also guess that most older people pay for their own exams and never need something expensive. That's why they can go w/o insurance.

Then there are those who can buy short term plans for a less amount. They are not ACA-qualified. They're not good policies, but they protect against catastrophes and cost less. If they DO get cancer, they can buy ACA policy the next enrollment period.

Then there will be some who end up in the hospital after an accident or whatever. I don't think a hospital will take someone without ins. or who can't pay the bill. They have to provide ER treatment in a life or death situation, but beyond that, they are under no obligation to treat a person. No one picks up the bill for that person.

We DO pick up the bill for those on Medicaid, or in a life or death situation (ER treatment).
 

But the deal is...no provider is going to treat someone w/o ins. or ability to pay a bill. They have to provide life sustaining measures in a life or death situation, but beyond that, they require ins. or large deposit and some proof of ability to pay what will be an enormous bill. If you get cancer w/o ins., you will not get treatment. Unless you're Paris Hilton, I guess.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
You and I grew up on entirely different planets.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not gonna happen. Haven't you heard the stories of people who couldn't get treatment because their insurers denied the claim or whatever? That means the providers would not treat them.

If you go to check into a hospital, you go through admittance. There, they require proof of insurance. If you don't have that, you will have to pay a hefty deposit and show proof of ability to pay. Otherwise, they'll tell you to try another hospital.

If you go to a doctor, sick, and say you don't have insurance and can't pay the bill, they will turn you away.

You don't work for free. They don't work for free. It's the way of the world. It has been that way as long as I can remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…