Are you familiar with the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool, the insurance of "last resort" for those who have pre-existing conditions that the "regular" insurance companies won't touch? A good friend of mine had hell getting coverage that he could afford to pay for when attempting to use the "Pool," and he had a good income. One of the quotes he was given was in excess of $1000 a month, and that was through the Risk Pool. Needless to say, he is a big fan of the Affordable Care Act.
Yes, but the deductibles here are ridiculously high. I haven't looked into in a while. But I have a budget of maybe $5k for health insurance. If the deductible is $2k and the plan is $400 a month, I am not going to really be that better off. I'm not an expert here, so I am sure there are better ways. But health insurance is tough in NYC. You have to remember that on an HMO it is ridiculous hard to get an appointment with a decent doctor here.
Unfortunately I'm all too familiar. In addition the extreme cost involved, before the Health Care Act lifetime limits applied to people in the risk pool as well. So if you were being treated for cancer and went over the lifetime limit for insurance costs you were no longer eligible to pay for treatment related to cancer. Basically you were no longer profitable and should die. I am typically in the minority, but my perspectives on this topic are extreme and passionate. If you have a close family member, especially a child, that has a preexisting condition that places them on the automatic disqualification list for health insurance then you probably feel as I do in respect to health care reform. Or if you know someone that exceeded their lifetime limit for treatment of disease under the old rules then you probably also share my views. If you are ignorant of these issues and go around spouting whatever right wing bull**** someone else puts into your brain without utilizing independent thought and analysis then I no longer have the time to debate you. You should feel blessed that you or your loved ones do not fall into the categories above and you can go on with your daily spew-fest imagining that all of those without coverage are out of work alcoholic guitar players who live with their mom.
Of course, but that's for extreme cases. We're talking about normal health insurance for your average person here.
Like I said - $1200 deductible in NYC for $250/month or so. There are plenty of options cheaper than your $750 per month that apply to most people. If you want super high-end options, that's fine - but that's not what other people are looking at. You said: I don't have health insurance because I can't afford to pay $750 a month yet don't qualify for the subsidized plans because of my income. You don't have health insurance because you won't accept normal health insurance that everyone else gets. It has nothing to do with not being able to afford health insurance. It's like saying I don't have a car because I can't afford the Mercedes that I want.
* I should clarify that is assuming you are eligible for normal health insurance plans. If, like Deckard's post mentioned, you only qualify for high-risk pool plans, that's a very different story.
I am employed by a small business in Houston. My health insurance premium (just for myself) is more than $750 per month - Blue Cross Blue Shield with pretty good coverage/benefits but a fairly high deductible. So why can't I just drop the coverage, save the monthly premium, pay the penalty errrr tax (which is less than the premium) and just get insurance if and when I get sick? Other than the ethical implications, is there anything wrong with this plan?
It could work if the difference between your prescription costs on/off plan and copays are not too much. The problem is you are basically paying the tax for a catastrophic plan that might be more expensive than just buy that coverage.
The issue is with the penalty tax, not a deduction for buying health insurance. A penalty for not buying something is completely different than a rebate for buying something. The correct comparison would be getting "taxed" $500 for not buying a Prius.
Where do you think the money comes from to give rich liberals thousands of dollars when they buy a Chevy Volt? It comes from your pocket, thus you just got taxed for not buying one. So your comparison is still faulty.
I would love to talk to your employer Pipe. 750 a month for individual coverage? Something is wrong there.
I can't find a flaw with that idea. They can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions. I'm sure the "tax" will get higher and higher until your scenario does not work anymore.
Again, it's the same thing - the only difference is semantics. Drop everyone's taxes by $500 and then tax any non-Prius owners $500 and you have the same end result as a $500 rebate for buying a Prius. Similarly, a tax penalty works the same way. A $500 tax penalty for not having health care is no different than raising everyone's taxes by $500 and giving those who buy health insurance a $500 tax credit.
Not really because you are talking about two different groups of people. The overlap will be large but not complete.
There is the flaw in your argument. They are not dropping everyone's taxes by $500. One situation is an incentive, and the other is a penalty. I don't know how to make it more clear. How about if your parents gave you $50 for making an A, and your parents forced you to give them $50 if you did not make an A. Is that the same thing? One thing is a credit and the other is a debit. They are not even close to the same thing.
Certainly true - but they would be exempt from the penalty anyway. I simplified for the "average case" scenario, but you could write the tax policy in such a way to make it identical both as a tax+credit vs a penalty.
