Insurance Mandate-Can you afford to purchase Health Insurance?

No, they aren't. An exchange is a marketplace. One that, in this case, is full of private/commercial insurance plans.

A public option would've been a public health insurance plan that also would've been sold through the exchanges, alongside those private plans. However, the public option was stripped from the legislation before it passed.

 

The ACA is not better than nothing at all. What would have been better would have been to first pass Private Health Insurance reforms that gave businesses and consumers the majority of the rights included in the "Patient Protection" portion of the ACA. Legislation that would take away legal protections afforded the Health Insurance Industry virtually unlike any other Business/Corporation doing business in the U.S, like the Sherman Act and Others. Even with ACA Insurance Companies can raise premiums at anytime and for virtually any amount (like Credit Card Companies who can raise interest rates without any caps per increase, lower credit limits without reason to do both at their whim with short notice and where there is little recourse for borrowers, both destroying borrowers FICO scores).

The business of Private Health Insurance and Government Health Insurance programs of Medicare and Medicaid or two different beasts.

The Medicare and Medicaid programs should have been reformed by amending and reforming the Legislation/Statutes of those programs.

Legislation/Statutes governing Private Health Insurance Companies, Group Health Insurance, Individual Insurance Plans, the Individual Mandate and Patient Protections should have been accomplished by amending the current laws governing these programs/businesses,consumer protections.

Instead we got thousands of pages of new Legislation is not easily understandable by the very individuals, families, businesses and so on that they relate to. Making the administration of Health Care harder, more costly and failing to do what the stated reason for its passage said it would.

It is the Federal Government and its Medicare and Medicaid Programs that have failed the most in providing well managed insurance for Seniors. Their ridiculous regulations that cause the cost of physicians and hospitals to provide care to rise, mismanagement of the Medicare Program and related programs is a big reason for rising costs AND lets not forget the Individuals and Families and Employees that believe their insurance should pay all or most of all their medical costs without their premiums increasing. Patients should however be allowed to purchase insurance that covers only what they want it to and base their decision on what they can afford out of pocket rather than being "mandated" to purchase cover for treatment they can afford to pay for out of pocket and that would reduce their premiums

Thus bring the cost of insurance down overall. With the individual mandate and HHS minimum coverage; it is no longers up to consumers. We will all have to carry maternity coverage coverage for preventative care/tests we could afford to pay ourselves. No more choices

 

yes, once again, republicans were for it before they were against it

http://swampland.time.com/2010/02/16/health-care-republicans-oppose-their-own-idea/

"In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”"

Republicans also tried to push the individual mandate under Clinton...



this is how is came about

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/25/will-americans-be-required-to-buy-health-insurance/

"with the report that two health insurance trade groups wrote a letter to the Senate, offering to stop charging sick people more for coverage, provided that everyone is required to buy insurance."

and as you can see, Obama was against it, he was for children being required to have coverage though, Hillary Clinton was one of the ones that supported the mandate

yes, the private insurance companies themselves wanted that added in

I am sure the ins companies also supported letting the government cover the elderly and disabled, the group most likely to need medical care

same as required seat-belts, required car insurance... yep, insurance industry wanted them too

 

sadly conservatives on both sides of the isle refuse to let the people decide, cause as your poll shows, most support a public option

 

I suppose technically you may be right if it weren't that these Exchanges will only exist through the subsidy of public funds. And, professed by the Federal Government to offer insurance at premium rates below other insurance plans.

So if the "public option" would have been sold through the "exchanges", how do you see that it would have been different than the other plans offered by private companies and would it have been insurance offered by and managed by the Federal or State Government much as Medicare and Medicaid? If not, what organization would develop pay for and run the plan?
.
I suggested prior to the passage of obamacare that to make sure those that were uninsurable due to costly illnesses or needing surgery or unemployed; a new program be offered with the same coverage as provided through Medicare Part B and with premiums based on total income but atleast current medicare monthly premium plus 20% Cheaper for them cheaper overall for taxpayers income for Fed. Gov to help pay for Medicare

 

States control insurance companies to they can say no to increases anytime they want if companies cannot justify them.

As for your other points where were Republicans on the ACA they were welcome at the table if they were serious but since they were not the Democrats rammed it through the Congress since they had no choice. Odd since it mirrored REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE ideas for it such as the individual mandate and therefore promoted personal responsibility. Sound familiar that was the case when Hillarycare was considered.

Something had to be done that would work for poor and moderate income people and I saw zero Republican options on the table for them. Nothing. So its better than nothing.

And excuse me for saying but if your a family of five earning over $92,000 and change and the insurance is $20,000 then pay the fine or get the insurance there should be tax deductions at that level to ease the pain.

 

Republican and the voters they represented were welcome at the table? I think not. Did you watch every hearing held on health care by the house and senate? I did. Did you watch the "round table the President had with Repubs and Dems? I did. Did you see they number of citizens and voters that protested the ACA prior to each passage and subsequently the President and Dems ignore them? I did. Then when the ACA was doomed to fail they passed it by circumventing the normal way bills are passed as explained on the Government website. And, passed it without knowing what was in it and the implications and true costs. The CBO director even commented on his website that the legislation was only deficit neutral because it used savings from that resulted from the passage of the Student Loan legislation attached to it and he said that the savings/revenue therefore couldn't be used to pay for the Student Loan Program AND reduce the cost of Obamacare. It was only deficit neutral by requesting the CBO use student loan cost savings and some revenue from SS generated by legislation on SS also attached to the bill.
And, it is now the Federal Government and their over reach, decreasing the control States had over private insurance; that has the ability through their Legislation to regulate the amount premiums can increase and the % within a given period of time. Not the States. But the President and Dems did not include such in the ACA. That is why since the law passed, premiums have steadily increased more than their historical norm. Me thinks you don't know much about the Health Care System and Private Insurance. Republican never supported all of the taxes ACA includes. Taxes on durable equipment, penalties for not being able to afford insurance with the coverage HHS mandates, more costly regulations on doctors and hospitals and other providers, mandating that private insurance companies "eat the cost" of paying 100% for preventative tests and covering patients already diagnosed with say cancer or those seeking coverage before undergoing a surgical procedure. Get real. Medicare and HHS are looking to deny benefits for treatments that physicians recommend and the care and surgery they do approve is paid at a rate of pennies on the dollar. This is going to force providers to reduce the number of Medicare and Medicaid patients they see if they see any at all. Nobody wants to work for free or lose money. Nothing is free. The Countries you think provide "free medical care" do not. The cost is paid for through various taxes and by paying their doctors, hospitals and other providers less. Reducing the reimbursements to physicians, etc. is not really reducing the cost of health care; the cost of providing it remains the same but those providing and insuring it just see less income and many end up not making an income that they can survive on from both a business and personal standpoint. That is why many are retiring early or starting other businesses or if young enough changing professions.

 

What I find interesting about the Medicaid qualification formula is that only income, not assets, are counted.

 

Most of those doctors also have very low cost educations in France an MD at the family practice level has to pay ,besides books and fees, around 24,000 Euros far less than a student training here. In the Netherlands they pay for everything and pay a stipend to the student while they are in school. So they can afford to earn less its not a big deal they still make a decent income. Maybe if state schools were cheaper it would be better at least one could have some doctors not loaded down with debt.

 

I prefer it that way since its not illegal to work as little or as much as one chooses one can opt into the low income bracket for Medicaid or opt out of it and join an exchange if your income is that flexible. Its not in my case even though I will go back to my normal working schedule and hustle some I don't see being out of Medicaid since I never earned over 133% of the Federal poverty line in my life. But I work only as much as I need to and my lifestyle is very modest.

 

So it should be up to the Government to define what a decent income is, or better said, what the services/treatment a doctor or private hospital provides is worth? While allowing lawyers, plumbers, electricians, accountants and all other professionals that are in private business( not employees of the City, County, State or Federal Governments to charge what they feel is a reasonable fee for their services. A fee that covers all costs associated with doing business and that is commensurate with their education, training and experience? Really?



There are no "State" Medical Schools in the U.S. And, again; the fact they earn less is why Doctors educated overseas seek employment here. Also, while I don't profess to know what the Residency programs consist of for physicians overseas or the level and number of licensing tests and experience required before becoming a "fellow" in their specialty if they have one; I can tell you that Residency programs in the U.S. provide Residents a stipend plus are costly to administer, especially since these Residents use to be paid as "assistant surgeons" and receive a payment from medicare and private insurance companies before PPO's, HMO's and Managed Health Care plans started back in the early 90's. Without these reimbursements, the cost of offering residency programs has risen and has resulted in fewer "slots" for Residents. When you attempt to reduce costs, no matter what the cost represents in an attempt to lower overall health care costs; it seems to always have a negative effect. Physicians trained overseas often fail to pass our licensing exams require they attain further education. They often have not meet Residency requirements and therefore if they do get their license, they still must complete residency requirements.

For a comparison, a Lawyer licensed to practice in one State cannot practice in another State until they pass that States licensing requirements. So would you be in favor of only one "national" bar exam? Would you be in favor of someone educated overseas and licensed to practice law in another Country be automatically licensed to practice law in our 50 States? Heck, individuals with a College Degree who then enroll in an online Law School program can't even take the bar exam in most U.S. States after they complete the program. Shouldn't they be allowed to take the Bar Exam? If online law programs are considered to be substandard, surely their graduates would fail the Bar, right? I think it likely the fail rate might be somewhat higher than grads from land-based law schools. But, those that pass the Bar should be allowed to practice. I personally have met and interacted with many Lawyers that I would consider not very well educated and who seem to have no trial experience and make are paid to basically get their clients plea bargains rather than offering them a defense. Misdemeanor Lawyers are the worse, most having previously been prosecutors and most failing their clients by pushing plea bargains that include deferred adjudication and probation and advising their clients to take the offers(actually scaring young adults into taking them). Sorry Lawyers but it is true. Non-violent criminal offenses both misdemeanor and those often labeled a felony are destroying lives, costing tax-payers billions, earning private prison corporations billions and paying City, County, State and Federal Government Billions.

Enough

 

Yes there are state universities have state run medical schools, most states in fact have one. As for licensing why can't the Federal Government take that over I don't see it as an issue all they need to do is if they meet the state licensing in any state they automatically are nationally licenses in all states and territories and if they lose that in any state they can't practice anywhere in the US or a territory. It would just take one Federal Law and placing it under the interstate commerce clause as now they can practice medicine anywhere in the US. I would make it voluntary however and have a Federal option for foreign doctors as long as they work in a capacity funded soley by Federal funds (Medicare, Medicaid, the Native American medical programs or the Federal agencies). And these doctors would need to have training and experience in the general practice of medicine and say five years of practice in good standing in their nation, an appropriate international agency and be seeking permanent residency in the US. That should limit the pool to decent applicants to people say from Cuba, India and many other nations who have suitable medical programs. I would also limit them to primary care and basic surgery.

As for law I would abolish the bar you pass the Law School training at a RA program you can practice law anywhere in the US.

As for salaries of medical providers I would not set that unless they work under the Federal government in a capacity noted above but one could require they take some Medicaid and Medicare patiants to hold a license at the rates assigned, the same for medical groups or they couldn't access any government backed insurance at all. That would toss them out of ACA insurance plans in exchanges and all Medicare patiants but they could opt out. I would set the number of patiants and this would includes all medical providers including dentists at say 5% of their clients that would be fair I think.

 

No. State Universities offer "pre-med" programs that consist start with majors in Science and recommended courses in math and so on. There are no State Universities that offer doctorate in medicine, podiatry, dentistry, chiropratic: if you know of one, name it.

 

http://www.med.ufl.edu/about/

University of Florida, Medical School offers many degrees and post-graduate programs including training medical doctors. Other states have them Wisconsin the state I was born in has a fine school in Madison in their university system which is considered a good one. Its not unique. The proof is in the link.

 

Since we have gotten of topic. I hope you that currently have no group health insurance through your employer or through an individual/family policy will start looking into what your options and the cost of those options will be under Obama care/PPACA and start saving money to pay for insurance to avoid paying a penalty that is a waste of your money and leaves you without any coverage.

The purpose of my thread was two-fold, to hear stories and get information from people that have no insurance, trouble continuning to pay their premiums and how they plan to deal with the cost of the mandate. And #2, to make sure people understand how the mandate will or will not help to able to afford coverage if they don't qualify for Medicaid or !00% of their premiums be paid by their States.

Unfortunately, I didn't receive many responses to the question I proposed.

Based on other threads I have started, posts to threads I have made and posts on various news media forums; I really don't think many having problems paying for or acquiring health insurance care at all about what Obama Care/PPACA will mean to them and the burden the mandate, increased taxes, fines and penalties will have onthem financially.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink".

 

It likely means noone will not have help getting insurance your talks over 400% of the Federal poverty line and assuming your insurer will keep you on insurance being likely a skilled worker its actually a small pool of people, I would guess under 5% of employed people. Self-employed are another matter but even they get help like I pointed out 75% of people roughly get help under the new law overall that includes the self-employed.

 

Perhaps people are reluctant to directly respond to your question because they don't want to share personal financial information, even if their posts are anonymous.

 

Still the most important question regarding the "mandate" is "can you afford" to purchase health insurance with the minimal coverage HHS mandates? Plus, if you can't and don't qualify for premium assistance, do you plan to borrow to buy insurance, use a charge care to pay premiums; or pay the penalty the IRS will charge you?

Surely these questions aren't revealing any of your personal financial information.

 

Since the insurance pools won't start forming until October (as I understand it), people currently don't know how much they will be required to pay if they don't qualify for assistance. It was also my understanding that, even if you don't qualify under the expanded Medicaid program, you might still get some other kind of premium assistance. In any event, people won't make financial plans until they know how much money they will need.