GOP Health Plan Has Its Own Financial Stick To Prod People To Buy Insurance

[milestogo]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: NPR

The Affordable Care Act's tax penalty for people who opt out of health insurance is one of the most loathed parts of the law, so it is no surprise that Republicans are keen to abolish it. But the penalty, also called the individual mandate, plays a vital function: nudging healthy people into the insurance markets, where their premiums help pay for the cost of care for the sick. Republican lawmakers think they have a better alternative.

The GOP approach is called a "continuous coverage" penalty. It increases the cost of the premiums for anyone buying an individual insurance policy if they have gone 63 or more consecutive days without health insurance in the previous 12 months. Their monthly premiums would rise by 30 percent, and that surcharge would last for a year. While Obamacare assesses a fine for each year people don't buy insurance, the GOP plan would punish those who decide to purchase health insurance for the first time ever, or after a lapse.

Much is at stake. If the GOP approach fails to prod enough healthy people into buying insurance, rates for everyone else in the insurance pool will rise — destabilizing promises by President Donald Trump and GOP leaders to make their Obamacare replacement more affordable.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that millions fewer people will buy insurance if the individual mandate is repealed and replaced with a continuous coverage surcharge.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/21/520566112/gop-health-plan-has-its-own-financial-stick-to-prod-people-to-buy-insurance

---

This is a million times worse than the tax penalty mandate. Its just one more way of screwing over the poor and the middle class.

[pangaia]

1. Would the 30% surcharge go up ANOTHER 30% the next year if they didn't buy insurance?

[LeftInTX]

10. I think it stays at 30%. Also, the surcharge will apply for one year, not forever.

[IronLionZion]

2. It discourages people from buying insurance

Which screws up the risk pool model pretty bad.

This types of things shouldn't be optional. At least major medical or catastrophic insurance should be required of everyone somehow. Nobody knows when they will get cancer or have a horrible car accident.

[milestogo]

4. Its the high cost that discourages people from buying insurance.

If people can't afford the premium in the first place, how are they going to afford the 30% increase?

[Gothmog]

3. It is not clear that this stick is allowed under reconciliation process

The increase in premiums is probably not allowed under reconciliation

[Historic NY]

5. Where's the freedumb ??? Its a mandate!!!

Wasn't this their gripes with Obamacare?

[Kimchijeon]

14. not to worry the cable 'news' and hate radio will cheer for how free this is

"derr ho ho ho folks, why this only punishes the lazy people, so yer FREE to get it if ya want. Also, yanno how ya don't pay a credit card bill and it goes up if you are a deadbeat, and boy howdy do we hate deadbeats, right? This punishes them, so's that youz get uh.... a better deal! Yeah, that's it. See how GREAT this is folks!"



I hate these fuckers so much. (The health insurance industry and the misery that they have caused... it's all down to them, their greed, lobbying, bullying, bribing, etc....they are pure evil)

[yellowcanine]

6. People will just not buy back into the system and will use ERs instead.

This is going to kill a lot of rural hospitals because they will again be carrying a lot of debt of sick people who cannot afford to pay for ER visits.

[HockeyMom]

7. Will the Government charge more also?

I went without health insurance from 62 until I became eligible for Medicare at 65. Aged into it at the exact same time ACA went into effect. My husband's employer insurance for family would have been $1,250/month for the two of us, just short of our mortgage payment.

No health insurance company to charge a higher rate for lack of continuous coverage. So would Medicare charge a higher rate also? I do not have Medicare Advantage from an insurance company.

A person on another website asked this question. They were 64 years old and were thinking about not buying insurance at sky high rates for the year before they became Medicare eligible. No, it is not just healthy young people thinking about dropping health insurance.

[turbinetree]

11. I am on Medicare and started receiving this earned benefit last year when I reached 65

because I paid into the system like everyone else that works.

If everyone had Medicare, the rate would not go up like you think, because "everyone" would be covered, young, old healthy, not healthy.
In the for profit plan you are always competing against the healthy and if you are not healthy you are risk to the bottom line.
So when United Heath Care CEO makes over 800 million and you pay for his stocks, Wall street to cover those stocks etc....
Who wins? They do every time they CEO makes his call to wall street to "project" the economic forecast of there "plan" to stay "profitable" determines the borrowing into the future.

I like Medicare, my CEO is me!!!!

Medicare does charge you for Part A or part B, but it is based on a formula as to how much you get in SS. I do believe that Medicare should have dental, which is currently not in there, shows you how much power is in the dental industry.

For example let's say I get over 2,000 a month in SS, to pay for my coverage through Medicare I have a portion of my SS taxed to pay for the Medicare, lets say its 130 a mouth, that is deducted from your SS. Part D on the other hand you pay for you drugs through that plan if you need drugs. If you are using Part D you must go to a provider that is authorized by Medicare and you pay a monthly fee to the "insurance" company, and then you pay for your prescription costs which in my opinion is BS. Part D should be wrapped in the Medicare Parts A and B together, it use to be at one time.

The only thing that the "advantage program is about in my opinion is that if you have SS and want that plan and SS is your only income then you are paying for that plan to cover what Medicare does provides at the 80/20, in my opinion I believe that it is a waste of money to give it to a for profit provider of there insurance to cover the other 20% in the 80/20 plan that Medicare provides.

So if I am getting $130. 00 Medicare deducted from SS
$100.00 Medicare Advantage being paid out of my own pocket
$ 30.00 Drug plan through Medicare
-----------
$ 260.00 Total cost monthly bill

Social Security $2000.00 per month benefit
$ 260.00 Medical Part A & B & D
------------
$1740.00 Social Security


I like Medicare, my CEO is me, and if there is a congress that is trying to "hurt" millions of us on Medicare we don't forget, we wiull put someone in office to expand and protect the program


I apologize for the rant, I hoped I helped

[stopbush]

15. Medicare is currently paid for by taxing 100% of people working in the US.

Those tax dollars are barely enough to cover seniors on Medicare, who account for roughly 19% of the population.

So the question is: how much would payroll taxes need to increase to cover 100% of the population as opposed to the current 19%? The current tax rate is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer, or a 2.9% total. 19% divides into 100% 5 times, so one assumes that one would need to raise the payroll tax five-fold to cover 100% of the population. That would mean that the employee would pay a tax of 7.25% as would the employer, equaling a tax of 14.5%.

Add into this the fact that current Medicare recipients pay monthly premiums of $109 on average, or $1308 a year.

So do the math: if you earn $50,000 a year, your Medicare tax would be $3625 at 7.25%. Add in your premiums of $1308, and you're paying just under $5,000 a year per person for Medicare for All. Sounds good.

But what if you are a family with a spouse who doesn't work and two young children who don't work? How are they covered in the Medicare for All scenario? Surely, there would be additional premium cost involved. They can't be covered free of charge. That $5000 per year mentioned above covers ONE working person, not their family members. Even if you waive the payroll tax deduction and charge only the average monthly premium per person (as Medicare currently does), you are looking at an additional $3900 per year to cover a non-working spouse and two children. That makes your cost around $9000 per year, and that is equal to 18% of that $50,000 income you are earning.

And, to cover all bases, let's not forget that you are currently paying 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. Add that into the mix, and your combined Medicare for All and SS expenses for that family of 4 with one bread winner described above would be over 25% of your income.

That's still a bargain when compared to the taxes paid in European nations, and it's the true cost of having a truly socialistic approach to things. It is what it is. Let's not downplay the realities involved.

I don't have the answers. I do know that while Medicare for All might well be the best and fairest approach we could take toward universal healthcare, it comes with real expenses and real costs to real people.

[turbinetree]

8. I want Medicare for all or universal coverage, end of story

and if Eddie Munster thinks that his plan should not be included in this BS, then he should suffer just like everyone else, and have his plan go up 30% and take a f***ing pay cut that everyone will be forced to do under this scheme. People forget that these cretin's did not win the majority of the votes, they won by gerrymandering that's it, and if that third leg of the stool was kicked out from underneath of them they would be forced to crawl back under there rock, where they belong

The CBO is a hack for the BS, the man in charged has already said he hates heath care and wants it to go back to the prior 2009 plan F**K him and the horse he road in on

[mopinko]

9. sounds like the perfect plan

for the descendants of dr mengele to propose.

[RobinA]

12. It's Like How the Electric

Company makes money off of people who can't pay their bill. Get your electric turned off, pay up completely AND pay a hefty fee to get the electric turned back on. Being poor is expensive.

[Kimchijeon]

13. well of course it does. it's from the health insurance industry, this is what they want

profit, profit, profit.

[DonViejo]

16. Locking...

The consensus of Forum Hosts agrees this is analysis and opinion. Hosts recommend you post this in the GD Forum or the Editorials and Other Articles Forum