Fines in Obamacare??? WTF WHAT'S THE POINT???????????

[Stasso]

People are outraged. Unfortunately it's the uninformed. The penalties are mandatory: I'll explain.

Health insurance, as a general theory mind you, works like most insurance. You pay a fixed amount per month, and in return, your policy-covered damages are paid for by the insurance company. The idea is to spread the risk out over time. Most people don't have $100,000 lying around to fix a mostly-burned house, for example, but they are able and willing to pay $50/month so that that risk never applies to them. If you choose not to get insurance, and your house burns, you either have to pay for it yourself (taking a crippling loan) or walk away from the burned remnants of your house with nothing. Either way, your neighbor is not directly affected. That's the basic idea, at least.

However, health care has a big difference: for the most part, if a sick, wounded or dying person is brought to a doctor or hospital, they will perform the necessary steps to save your life and repair the damage. Medical care, in this country, is not free. It is, in fact, very very far from free. The very first article on my Google search for "average hospital bill for a broken arm" was $12,000 I don't have that lying around. Do you? Does the average American family? Unless you happen to have a large pile of money lying around for just this reason, hospital bills can be highly damaging.

If you have good health insurance, then there's nothing to worry about directly. You're covered.

But what if you don't? You come out of the hospital with your arm in a cast and a $12,000 bill for services in your pocket. You have two options: pay somehow (again, a loan is often called for here) or flee and not pay. The first option can be crippling. and a broken arm isn't the worst thing in the world. Not by a longshot. Try having a child. Or cancer treatment. Both will easy pass $12,000. For many low-income families, a loan to pay this off can be more than they can add to their already existing budget. How about those that flee? Yeah that's illegal, but you can't sue an empty well, and throwing them in jail doesn't pay the bills. So where does the money come from? Why, it comes from other people, of course! If the hospital knows that, let's say 10 people are going to get a broken arm this year, and it costs $10,000 each to fix, but two of them on average can't/won't pay, they will still get their $100,000 total -- by charging $12,500 to all ten, and the eight that pay will cover the total costs.

Yes, The health care industry actually does this. This isn't a case where an uninsured motorist who hits a tree will have to walk to work. This is the case where everyone gets their treatment, even if it's 100% known they can't, or won't, pay. The money comes from people who can.

Now, because medical costs can be quite expensive, medical insurance can be quite expensive. It's proportional. So, what a lot of people choose to do, is not buy health insurance until they think they'll need it. Here's how the insurance companies deal with it: they refuse potential customers with pre-existing conditions. "Why should we accept your $400/month", they tell the construction worker, "when we can clearly see you have a broken arm that will cost us $12000?" Same with cancer, genetic diseases, and pregnancy. Yes. Health insurers can, and did, refuse customers because they/their wife was pregnant. It was a bad risk for them. This means more people getting treatment that could not pay, which meant higher prices to those that could pay, and more people who couldn't pay crippled by debt, lawsuits, or criminal charges.

It was a broken system. The ACA attempted to at least make it some better. Here's how:

A) Health insurance companies could no longer refuse customers for pre-existing conditions.
B) Everyone has to have health insurance.

This is a both-or-neither situation. What if you did A, but not B? Well, people would once again only get insurance just before they needed it -- even with a broken arm. Or cancer. They could not be refused, after all. Since that would drive up the effective costs to the insurers, it would drive up prices for insurance -- and everyone would pay more, especially people who had ALWAYS had insurance. The only way to mitigate this damage, to keep average costs low, is to force people to buy insurance, even if they don't think they need it. And, yes, "force" means "pay up to 4% of your total salary if can afford, but choose not to buy, health insurance".

It is not a perfect solution. It is, however, the best we could come up with that could become law. Yes, that means a fine for people who choose not to buy insurance, because right now, such people are a penalty on the rest of us. It is time the penalty was applied to the correct place: the people voluntarily ducking out on their responsibilities.

I had a witty reply but I am sorry forcing everyone into what is in essence a giant gambling scheme doesn't fit with my idea of freedom. It seems like people want to prevent capitalism inside of the medical field so we can have supply and demand set the price instead of this B/S we have to discourages common free trade practices like comparing prices (it is convoluted today to attempt to find the most affordable care) and holding doctor more responsible when they fuck up ( Studies have found the current system encourages doctor from preventing mistakes during surgery as to fix the mistake you can have them come back and pay for another surgery).

The only responsibility we have is to not harm each other, not to wipe each others ass with b/s insurance programs.

[zaphon]

That is more or less the definition of "insurance".

I thought insurance was to spread the cost, not to shift it to those who can pay more. That's taxation in the US. "Oh you make more money, you can pay an even higher percentage."

[Famine]

That is more or less the definition of "insurance".

You are 100% correct. The problem is we, as a country, no longer distinguish between health CARE and health INSURANCE.

[Templar 331]

The only responsibility we have is to not harm each other, not to wipe each others ass with b/s insurance programs.

When we're paying to keep you alive because you didn't feel like buying health insurance, it is everyone's responsibility.

[Sky High]

the fines incentivize you to get on the ACA?
did the people who actually wrote the legislation think of this? uh I'm pretty sure they did. and they didn't care.
get on the program? it's an insurance policy for fuck sakes, you only NEED it when you need it.
ONLY EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE THIS LEGISLATION.

ugh, the fact that we DONT have a european healthcare system is why our healthcare system sucks. honestly who really thinks that unless you have thousands of dollars lying around that healthcare in this country is even remotely what it should be? but the fact that you lay the blame SOLELY on one guy shows how little you really know or really care to know.

[Breccia]

Well I was going to come back and tell the OP how the very site he linked disproved two of his own arguments. Turns out the OP is banned. Oh well.

But just to throw them out there:
-- the maximum penalty is three times the minimum penalty. In 2016, for example, no family will be fined more than $2100 no matter their income.
-- the maximum penalty is ALSO capped by the national average "bronze" medical care yearly costs. So, you can't be fined more than the cost to buy insurance in the first place (at least, that appears to be the idea)

[BrerBear]

I'm in Southern CA, I had the top PPO plan the company offered for a family of 4. It was just under $1100 a month and is now $1850 a month, and my deductibles went from $500/$1000 to $750/$1500.

Actually, one other thing that strikes me as peculiar about your example. I live in a higher cost area than you, my family consists of older folk (higher insurance cost), and yet my ACA platinum plan through the Covered California program is significantly less expensive than yours, even though I get zero subsidy.

Is your company not subsidizing your plan at all, or something? If your company is subisdizing your plan, and you're still paying that much more than me, something is very very wrong with what your company is giving you...

At my former company, the company paid 90% of the employee cost and 70% of the employee's family members, which was standard for the industry.

[Kujako]

I thought insurance was to spread the cost, not to shift it to those who can pay more. That's taxation in the US. "Oh you make more money, you can pay an even higher percentage."

Don't get me wrong, I dislike the mandate and several other parts of the ACA. I just think it's better then what we had without it and that it has the potential to grow into a real public option.

For example, the penalties for those without insurance are disconnected from the program itself. I would rather see that money go to cover emergency room costs for the uninsured rather then have those costs be amortized by people WITH insurance. I would also like to have seem the expansion of medicare handled better, and I think the argument for a public option should have been simply "medicare for everyone". Then perhaps we could have avoided idiots like this...



As soon as these people started showing up, I knew we were doomed to a half arsed solution.

[Famine]

As soon as these people started showing up, I knew we were doomed to a half arsed solution.

Wow...that has GOT to be a joke...right?

[Mayhem]

Doctors are limited too you know. same goes for medicine.

wow, so people will only get ill or suffer from accidents if enough doctors are around or enough medicine is there to buy? what? what has the number of doctors todo with people being insured?

[Endus]

Given the way that this opened, it isn't going to go anywhere productive, so I'm locking this.