Healthcare reform is going to blow up in our faces

[Klukie]

Imagine for a moment all of the people that work for minimum wage or even slightly above...Now imagine a scenario in which they are forced to buy a healthcare plan that they can't afford the premium for, let alone the high decuctibles and co-pays on. When they realize that they have no other viable alternatives to this crappy plan, what do think is going to happen? People generally don't like to be forced to do things that aren't good for them.

[OregonBlue]

1. Minimum wage earners are going to get hefty subsidies and will be able to afford insurance.

[Fumesucker]

8. Who is going to cover the high co-pays and deductibles for those workers?

There will be a subsidy for the premiums only, not for copays and deductibles..

The only thing worse than no insurance is having insurance you can't use.

[quiet.american]

11. Not true. There are also individual/family cost-sharing subsidies in the bill. nt

[berni_mccoy]

12. Subsidies cover max out-of-pocket, not just premiums.

[dflprincess]

29. Please link to the section of the bill that spells that out

I have not been able to find it.

[Missy Vixen]

62. The section of the bill that states the subsidies is playing ten-dimensional chess with President

Obama right now.

My advice? Don't hold your breath waiting for the link.

:eyes:

[FarLeftFist]

90. Health care reform calculator

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[Hello_Kitty]

22. A 25 year old with no dependents making $10 an hour will have to come up with $90 a month.

Which is a lot of money when you're only making 10 bucks an hour.

[Matariki]

23. Thank you. People have been stubornly ignoring the numbers on this issue.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. They don't care. They'll usually respond with a lecture about "collective responsibility".

Completely oblivious to how condescending and assholish they sound.

[closeupready]

48. Or worse, they just call you a liar and shout "GO READ THE BILL"

n/t

[yodoobo]

92. collective responsibility is progressive value

Its not condescending. Its just fact.

That wasn't even in dispute a year ago here. It has only become disputed by a few once they realized that they might have to live up to the responsibility portion.

[sabrina 1]

97. If you're talking about mandated insurance, it certainly was in

dispute. Mandated insurance is a Republican idea opposed by real Democrats including this president.

I'm not going to waste my time linking to Obama's own words about why he did NOT support them. I've posted them many times, it's not hard to find. Why did he flip-flop on his position on mandates which was a principled position? He has never bothered to explain.

If you want see how this bill will work, look at what is happening in Mass. This is just a bigger version of Romneycare and I don't recall much support for Romneycare back when it was Republicans who were pushing it. What I remember is Democrats vehemently opposing it BECAUSE of mandates.

Most real Democrats supported and still do, a Single Payer system. The for-profit system that is now being expanded is immoral and everyone knows in the world knows it, except for people who care more about a win for the team than about people's basic rights. Not much difference between the two parties after all, and this HCR mess has definitely proved it.

Claiming that poor people for whom $90.00 a month may as well be $10,000.00 something apparently many 'democrats' cannot relate to, need to pull up their bootstraps and stop being a 'burden on the rest of us', is nothing more than proof that Democrats have moved so close to the right, that is hardly any difference at all. Your own post proves it. I remember not so long ago, when it was Republicans posting this kind of 'responsibility' accusation against the poor.

[Fumesucker]

27. Is that $90 pre tax or post tax? n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

35. I've tried to find that out. In my state Medicaid eligibility is based mostly on gross pay.

There are deductions for work, educational, and child care expenses but that's it.

[OregonBlue]

43. It's usually based on Gross adjusted earnings. Not gross pay.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Like I just said. They allow for some deductions but it's not your net take home. eom

[ourbluenation]

38. are they working full time or part time? Full time it's about 5% of monthly income. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Right, because people making $10 an hour have so much extra cash lying around.

See, this is what I'm talking about: People who have no clue what it's like for people who live hand to mouth. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed and get back to me.

[ourbluenation]

40. You're making some assumptions about where I'm at on all this. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Sorry if I jumped to a wrong conclusion.

This subject has me hair-triggery. :hi:

[Mari333]

28. lots of champagne liberals on DU Im afraid

clueless as to what it is to live on minimum wage or be jobless.

[LynneSin]

58. Or they could be covered under their parents plans - that's in the bill

n/t

My nephew is one of those you speak of. In HCR he can now go under his father's health insurance plan.

[Occulus]

72. What if his father hated him and refused to put him on it? n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

76. Right, because every 25 year old is in your nephew's situation.

Every 25 year old making 10 bucks an hour has middle class parents with good insurance who are willing and can afford to insure them.

[Bryn]

79. Mom gets $1093.00 SS checks monthly, $96.00 is taken out for Medicare plus

53.00 for Plan D (Bush's gift to Big Pharma) plus $173.00 BlueCross BlueShield as supplement to Medicare. This leaves her $771.00 per month to live on. (no co-payments/deductibles which is good)

I also have Medicare via SSDI. 96.00 is taken out for Medicare and no extra charge for Windsor Advantage which includes prescription drug plan, basic vision, basic dental and other extras. Co payment is 15.00 for dr. visit and low deductibles for others.

If this 25 yr old person making $10 an hr pays $90 a month before tax this probably is a good deal, but I don't know how much this person would have to pay for co-payments/deductibles. If they're too much, then $90.00 per month would be wasteful.

[Lorien]

102. I had two plans that were similar to those being proposed for the poor; $10,000

deductible (minimum) with a 20% copay after the deductible is met. They fight every claim on top of that.

[Greyhound]

95. Actually, that person has to come up with ~$200 per/month and hope that they get the difference back

in a tax refund.

Just keeping the scenario accurate and kicking.

[WCGreen]

108. But look at it this way, if you got sick once your bill could rise far

above the $1,080 you would pay per year.

[RainDog]

94. with a 60% deductible, right?

that was the last bit I read.

do you really think a person making even 10 bucks an hour can afford to pay that percentage of all medical costs out of pocket?

do you have any idea what life is like for working people in this nation?

[Lorien]

100. That won't help with the fact that they can't afford the 10k deductibles, the 20% copays

or the claims that will always be turned down. I had the kinds of plans they are proposing for the poor; you pay out and get ZERO in return for your investment.

[jljamison]

2. in theory

that is what the subsidies are for.

[havocmom]

17. Theory. Practical experience has taught the poor that theories aren't reality

When you can't take time off to get to a doctor you can't afford to pay anyway...


When taking time off for care means less paycheck and possibly no ability to pay the rent that month....

When one has no car and it may take up to 4 extra hours to get to doctor and back by bus....

When workers can barely keep roof over them AND food on the table....

Theory just doesn't do a lot.

[jonathon]

3. That is why they are pushing of the majority of this bill into going into effect until AFTER

The next Presidential election....

I am disgusted at this entire thing.

[havocmom]

21. That deserves to be restated over and over

It is a question that needs to be asked, a lot: WHY doesn't the bulk of it go into effect until after 2012?

Hmmm, corporations can give give give, sayeth the SCOTUS. Methinks they will have lots of $$ to pay off pols before the people see how much this 'reform' needs reforming.

[Maat]

37. +1

This retired social worker thinks that this whole thing is going to be a disaster.

[TorchTheWitch]

98. I've been saying that from the beginning

They knew from the beginning that this was going to be a huge financial burden to most people.

[kentuck]

4. I think this is more of a positive than a negative for Democrats...

If they define it as a first step and not the end of healthcare reform.

[sendero]

87. Except they'll be out of power....

... and hence unable to enact reforms later.

[mmonk]

5. It is risky. We'll see what happens.

[theoldman]

6. What high deductibles?

What high co-pays? Where are you getting this information? Fox News!

[Fumesucker]

9. Low end policies aren't going to have deductibles and co-pays?

[ipaint]

24. I'm waiting for an answer, too.

When all you can afford with a subsidy is a 60/40 plan I had no idea there was some mysterious entity within the bill that was picking up the 40 share.

Please, all of you who have read and analyzed all 2700 pages, enlighten me.

[quiller4]

30. The very low-end really high deductible policies won't exist

Some policies now have deductibles as high as $5,000. Those will be gone. Also much preventive care will be exempt from deductibles entirely.

[dflprincess]

34. For a single person the House bill allows an annual deductible of $1,500

with a max out of pocket of $5,000 (max out of pocket for a family is $10,000). The Senate bill permits a max out of pocket of just over $5,900 (single) and over $11,000 (family). These out of pocket may increase annually.

[Lorien]

103. Anyone who has ever had one of these policies (I've had two. Most of my self employed friends

have them) know exactly how they are structured; there's a minimum $10,000 deductible with a 20% copay after that deductible is met. And don't think that they'll pay out ANY claims without a huge fight; a friend of mine who works in a claims department told me that denying claims on low income plans is simply corporate policy; they know that policy holders don't have the resources to fight them.

If you doubt these standards, do your own insurance search and talk to an insurance representative.

[quiet.american]

7. Imagine that you actually read the bill and knew what you were talking about. nt

[theoldman]

10. If people actually read the bill, there would be little argument.

[berni_mccoy]

14. +1000. Please READ THE BILL PEOPLE!

[kentuck]

16. Has anyone actually read the entire 2700 pages?

on the computer??

[Schema Thing]

13. you're ignorant of what this bill does

inform yourself before you waste our time.

[no limit]

44. You're ignorant of whats its like to be single and live on $10 an hour

[girl gone mad]

52. EVeryone who doesn't agree with you must be ignorant.

That seems to be a persistent theme among bill boosters, yet there is no substance to any of the posts making such dithering proclamations.

[Klukie]

80. You chose to waste your time...

stay out of the post if it is so ignorant.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. The Dems pushing a Repo plan is a bad idea, politically, if you ask me.

Forcing Americans to buy an inferior product from people of ill repute makes no sense.

[havocmom]

18. Thank you

Considering that so many bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, even for people WITH decent insurance, how the hell does more corporate insurance help?

[CreekDog]

19. Of course, what are your options now? Bankruptcy?

no care at all?

[dflprincess]

32. Pretty much the same options many will have with "reform"

If you're income is over the subsidy limit, you have a chronic condiditon and you're looking at $5,000 in annual out of pocket expenses. Or if you don't have a chronic condition but that preventative test comes back needing follow up - that can get pretty pricey even if the follow up test come out okay.

Of course, you can always put your deductible and copays on a credit card - the other industry that will win big with this scam.

[CreekDog]

42. The Same??? You can get insurance with a chronic condition?

If you can, can you get it to cover your condition?

Finally, if it's the same, will your rate be the same as someone who is healthy and in the same age group as you?

You have lost me on your other points because because you insisted on calling things the same.

[dflprincess]

53. The same situation will exist -

It's not impossible for someone with a chronic condition to get coverage now - the question is and will be can you afford it? Or, will the coverage you can afford come with out of pocket expenses that are so high you still can't get care?

People with preexisting conditions are going to be pushed into a "high risk" pool and coverage won't come cheap. And, you know what - not everyone who has what the insurance companies call a preexisting condition has a chronic condition or even big odds of having a problem in the future but they will land in the "high risk" pool. Over thirty years ago my cousin's wife had lymphoma - she's been healthy since, but what insurance she could get, she can't afford. She'll land in the "high risk" pool paying more than she should for a shoddy product, if she can afford what's offered through this scam.

People need access to care, not access to coverage. Especially "coverage" from companies that makes their money by finding ways to deny that access.

[CreekDog]

54. The same, except there will be subsidies for people to buy coverage

the same except there will subsidies for people in the high risk pool to buy coverage

the same except the out of pocket amount will be limited, which it isn't currently

the same except that in four years, those with preexisting conditions will be charged the same amount as healthy people in their age group

the same except that there will be non profit exchanges set up to compete with private health plans

the same except for major expansion of Medicaid

the same except for billions spent on healthcare clinics around the country


the same?

[Klukie]

55. Who will be allowed into the exchanges?

will they be open to everyone?

[dflprincess]

67. Subsidies only exist if your income is below a certain level

the House bill sets it at 400% of the poverty level - and that isn't a whole lot of money - and those subsidies decrease as income increase until they disappear completely. If you make a nickel over the FLP you don't get any kind of a subsidy, but you will be required to pay a premium only the government thinks you can afford and you will be on the hook for out of pocket expenses.

I know people with paying obscene amounts for "coverage" now who can't afford to get care - and they are people who won't qualify for subsidies. Nothing will change for them.

This scam will cut the number of uninsured by adding to the ranks of the underinsured.

[CreekDog]

69. Again and again I was pointing out that without the bill, we have NO subsidies

I didn't say they were the most wonderful thing.

I didn't say they were big enough or covered enough people.

I SIMPLY SAID THEY ARE THERE.

Because some of you are arguing as if they will be there without this bill but they won't.

Without this bill Medicaid expansion will not be there.

Without this bill eventual removal of differential pricing based on health will not happen.

Without this bill preexisting conditions can be excluded from coverage even if you can get insurance.

Without this bill, you may not be able to get coverage at all for any reason.

Without this bill, all the money for expansion of health care clinics across the nation may never happen --perhaps it's likely it will never happen.

You are arguing whether it's good enough, I'm arguing how good it is compared to doing without it altogether.

[timeforpeace]

20. Obviously the cynical calculations have been made and they just don't care. Political expediency.

[krabigirl]

25. yep

[Hello_Kitty]

26. A 25 year old making minimum wage will get Medicaid. However if s/he gets a 56 cent raise:

S/he now makes too much for Medicaid and is required to purchase a health insurance plan where his/her share of the premium is $50 a month. We are talking about someone making $7.81 an hour.

Check it for yourself: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[ipaint]

33. Is that the 60/40 plan, I wonder.

40 percent of the bill is more than all but the rich afford can pay for a serious illness, a broken bone for the lower class will send you right to the shitty medicaid program.

Does anyone factor in that 40% owed as a result of medical bills when figuring that person's subsidies for the next year.

Where is the access to anything besides primary care for the lower classes? Medicaid for the poor is a disaster today. So we add 15-20 million more people. Brilliant move.

[dflprincess]

36. And it assumes s/he lives in an area where they can find a doctor who will take Medicaid (nt)

[LynneSin]

57. 25 year old making minimum wage would be covered under their parents insurance

Believe until they are 27.

THen there are conditions for mandating people buy insurance based on what people make.

[Hello_Kitty]

91. My parents were dead by the time I was that age.

And you only get covered under your parents' insurance if you qualify under the terms of the current policy, which in most cases means you have to be a full-time student and unmarried. That's assuming you still have parents and they have insurance.

[spanone]

45. zat you carnac?

[Jester Messiah]

46. Nice scaremongering. Think anyone will go for it?

The truth is that people who can't afford it will get subsidies. It's not exactly a hidden truth either. Maybe your troll-fu needs work.

[Klukie]

64. enough to cover the cost of their premiums and their co-pays and deductibles?

[Ikonoklast]

49. Read the bill.

You obviously would rather be outraged instead of educating yourself.

[girl gone mad]

50. I think a lot of people are going to simply choose to..

ignore the mandates. They are certainly deeply unpopular.

The insurers have their tens of thousands of loopholes written into the bill. When a system is that heavily weighted toward one side, it ceases to be of any use to the other side. Just like there are now a sea of people walking away from their mortgages, many who would never have dreamed of doing such a thing 5 years ago, we will see people shrug off these types of rules that they did not agree to and which threaten their personal health and finances.

[tavalon]

51. Health Insurance Bailout

Call it by its real name, please.

[LynneSin]

56. Imagine that there is stuff written in the law to deal with that

Or did you skip over that part of the bill?

[Klukie]

59. Who is eligible for the exchanges?

When will they take effect? When will the mandate take effect?

[Klukie]

61. dupe

[madville]

60. I predict SCOTUS throw out the mandate among other things in this bill

I think it will go 6-3 in favor of the people not being forced to give money to a private corporation.

[Inuca]

63. Wouldn't MedicAid be covering these people under the new law?

Or was that a trick question?

[upi402]

74. Medicaid covers low wage workers? n/t

[madville]

65. I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of the people

I think it will go 6-3 in favor of the people not being forced to give money to a private corporation. Plus a few of them probably want to slap back at the President after being called out during the speech awhile back.

[Maat]

66. +1

This law school graduate agrees with you.

[Kitty Herder]

68. The SCOTUS won't do a thing.

They looooovve corporations and love screwing the people. This bill forces people to buy a very expensive product from large, powerful corporations. I don't see this Supreme Court deciding against that.

[madville]

70. They owe Obama some payback

No way the conservative justices vote with the administration, they will vote against mandates just to be against Obama. Then I would like to believe that the liberal justices would do the right thing for the right reasons and vote against the mandates as well.

[eShirl]

73. Why, because he hurt their widdle feelings?

poor babies

[madville]

78. They are petty and selfish, of course they go against the administration

n/t

[Bluebear]

82. OMG in what fantasy?

[Kitty Herder]

85. I think their loyalty to the corporatations will trump hurt feelings in this case. nt

[yodoobo]

93. It will be upheld

The penalty for non-compliance will be a tax.

The power to tax for certain behaviors is well established and firmly rooted in precedent.

It may not even be heard by the Supreme Court.

[Lorien]

104. The same SCOTUS that recently decided that money= free speech? nt

[Xenotime]

71. Bullshit. This will be the best thing that happens.

And it proves to the rethugs we can get something done.

[cali]

75. I don't think so. and if people who are as poor as I am get as good

a deal on subsidized insurance as I have currently through the state, it should actually help quite a lot of people.

[DCBob]

77. There will be options for those who cant afford.. This bill is not meant to make poor people poorer.

If there are some individuals who are adversely affected then modifications will be made.

[Bluebear]

81. 'then modifications will be made.' - when? How about if we lose the House?

When will these modifications be forthcoming?

[DCBob]

83. I cant answer that... all I am saying is that no one supporting this bill...

intends or wants to harm poor people.

[sendero]

88. Exactly..

.. how does that help?

[leftstreet]

84. I'm sure the Republicans will 'fix it later' when they take the midterms

Surely...

K&R

[Bluebear]

86. Without a doubt.

nt

[troubledamerican]

89. But we WON -- LOL. It's a murder-suicide. Hilarious.

"Yes, America, first I put the gun to your head, then I put the gun in my mouth"

Hello military coup.

[New Dawn]

96. Kick for truth.

[Lorien]

99. The plan without the Public Option will certainly be our undoing. There's no doubt

about that in my mind, which is why I think that it's critical to either demand the PO or kill the bill. I've had a lot of personal experience with "affordable" health care plans for the self employed. The deductibles START at 10k and they fight you tooth and nail on every claim. No one is proposing that we hold the providers of these "affordable" (under $600 a month) plans accountable. It's nothing more than extortion in my book; lots of cost with zero service in return. People will be angry enough about being forced to purchase a for-profit product; they'll be FURIOUS when they try to make a claim and are denied over and over. They'll feel used and victimized, and they'll hold the Democrats responsible for that. We won't see another majority like the one we currently have for decades.

[ProSense]

101. OK

"Now imagine a scenario in which they are forced to buy a healthcare plan that they can't afford the premium for, let alone the high decuctibles and co-pays on."

They get subsidies and/or a hardship exemption and are able, for the first time ever, to get the full measure of health care as millions of Americans enjoy.

That's not a scenario that will "blow up in our faces."


Oh and for those who don't want their money going to a for-profit plan, they'll have a choice of a non-profit, also for the first time ever.

[kenny blankenship]

105. non-profit also for the first time ever. Is there NOTHING you won't say? BLUE CROSS

Say it. "BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD" Originally not for profit and still non-profit in some states - and some of the worst insurance you can buy.

[LDB]

107. full measure ....

"They get subsidies and/or a hardship exemption"

With respect, I must strongly disagree with your comments here and others you've made previously as well.

Any sense of subsidy at all (if qualified) will essentially be applied toward paying for the insurance itself. This money goes to the insurance companies that supply this supposedly new, improved, and now, required insurance. This subsidized partial payment, along with the "insured's" hard earned money allows that buyer to purchase a minimally useful policy with absurdly high deductibles and subsequently high co-pays. This means that such an "insured" will still NEVER be able to afford health care. Simple numbers show about 5-10k in deductible per year plus the cost of the insurance per year comes out to anywhere between 6k and 12k per year before the insurance company even begins to cover anything that it doesn't outright deny. How does someone making 20 - 30k gross per year afford that?

"Full measure of health care as millions of Americans enjoy"?

This phrase honestly sounds like a sale-tag-line. However, if it describes virtually NO health care, then you are correct, I deem. We all know that situation applies to 47 million people in this country right now, and the 30 million-ish that the new HCR will "cover" will be spending their money for insurance policies and still not be able to afford the cost of the medical care. Oh, and what about that other pesky 17 million or so?

Non-profit? Profit? Absolutely irrelevant if an individual or family can't get critical medical treatment because they still can't pay for it despite being "insured".

Blow up in our faces? That's putting it mildly, I think.

[TheFarseer]

106. Yes, you are correct

I didn't have health insurance for a number of years because I didn't have any money and I didn't feel like I needed it. As it turned out, I did not need it and it would have been a waste of my money. I would have been pissed as hell if I had to buy a policy for no particular reason when I can barely make rent.