General discussion


Health Care reform, you must buy insurance

By CG IT ·
From an article on CNN web site aobut health insurance.

So if I make $30,000 a year, I have to buy health insurance by law. According to the article, the average premiums per year is $3,500.00. [Kaiser] That's about $290.00 per month. with the subsidy of $850.00 I still have to pay $220.00 per month for health insurance.

My car payment is that much. So now I have to take the money I would buy a car with and buy health insurance because its the law. And, I have to send my money to a private insurance company whether I want to or not. Pretty soon, by law, I'll have to buy an american made car, and be told how much I have to spend to buy it.

I can see the car industry sales tanking more than it already has. No one is going to be able to afford a new car when health insurance payments cost as much even with a subsidy.

Somethings not right about this and the american people don't seem to realize we are being told we must buy something from a private company by law.

See the article here:

3. You could get a subsidy to buy insurance if you make less than $88,000 per year for a family of four.

How the health care bill could affect you RELATED TOPICS
Health Care Costs
Health Care Issues
Health Care Policy
Health Care Reform
Starting in 2014, the health care reform bill provides subsidies for people who don't get insurance from their employers and therefore have to buy it on their own. The size of the subsidy depends on your income, whether you're single or have a family, your age, and where you live.

Here are a few examples:

? A 40-year old individual making $30,000 a year in a medium-cost area of the country will get an $850 subsidy toward buying a policy, which should cost about $3,500, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator.

? A 40-year-old in the same city who has a family of four and is making $60,000 will get a $4,220 subsidy toward a policy that costs $9,435.

You can estimate your own subsidy by using the

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by Lily_21 In reply to Health Care reform, you m ...

It is not for our country))
I am sure)

Collapse -

So, what happens if we don't buy insurance

by GSG In reply to Health Care reform, you m ...

A hospital cannot refuse to treat someone regardless of insurance status or ability to pay if it's an emergency. That's why patients with an ingrown toenail go to the ER. Even though we treat them 50 times a year and know they can't pay, we can't refuse them. That's called EMTALA. So, we can't refuse to treat someone without insurance.

We also can't be the police. Are we going to be required to turn the names of everyone who is treated who doesn't have proof of insurance over to the police?

Will they go to jail?

Collapse -

This is the worst law ever enacted...

This is the worst law ever enacted by the worst Congress and President we have ever had. The Health Insurance mandate within the Health System overhaul legistration is directly in oposition to everything we believe in, everything the founding fathers fought and died for, it is a mockery of the system imposed by a ploitical puppet who would destroy us simply to see his place in the history books assured. I would refuse to pay any fine, period. Where do they get the authority/power to tell us we MUST pay for this from our own pocket? Stand up and be counted, remove every single last one of the traitors from office this November and impeach Omama, be done with them and repeal this horrible "obamanation" of a law. Return us to liberty and freedom and the rights granted us by the Constitution, vote the bums out!

Collapse -

Already a precedence for something similar in the USA

by NotSoChiGuy In reply to Health Care reform, you m ...

"Somethings not right about this and the american people don't seem to realize we are being told we must buy something from a private company by law. "

Auto Insurance. Only two states don't require it (from what I can tell from quick online searches), and those states require that you be able to prove you can pay for damage should an accident occur (financial responsibility).

While I think something needed to be done about the spiraling costs of health care, I don't feel this was it.

Collapse -

That's a false comparison

by maxwell edison In reply to Already a precedence for ...

The comparison to mandated auto insurance is a false one.

The auto insurance mandate is for liability coverage only, in case someone else is harmed (person or property) by your driving. There is no law in any state requiring collision or comprehensive insurance to cover one's own loss. If you run your car into a tree and you don't have collision and comprehensive insurance, too bad; you have to pay for the damages out of your own pocket (although your liability insurance would pay for the tree if it were damaged).

If your automobile is financed, the lender might require full coverage as a condition of the loan, but it's not by law. I don't finance automobiles, and as such, I carry liability only insurance on all of my vehicles. (However, the automobiles I buy don't cost $60,000 - more like $6,000. I paid $4,500 for the one I'm currently driving.)

Mandated medical insurance is more analogous to mandated collision and comprehensive insurance. If you run into a tree while skiing, and you don't have medical insurance, but emergency treatment must be given (by law), then the person should be held accountable for the cost.

There's the financial liability argument, contending that the medical system has to absorb non-payers, which is, in turn, a cost passed onto the paying customers, but that's for emergency treatment only. Shop lifting as also a cost passed onto the paying customers, but it doesn't mean we all have to buy shoppers insurance.

The mandated medical insurance is not limited to emergency treatment. If medical insurance is mandated, it should be done so for emergency treatment only, and it should give medical facilities more leeway to turn down non-emergency visits to an emergency facility. But tougher accountability laws would be a better option than mandated insurance laws.

Personally speaking, I'd rather have a catastrophic only medical insurance option, and pay for the little stuff out of my own pocket; but that option's seldom discussed. In fact, if that was the rule instead of the exception, overall medical costs would plummet.

Collapse -

There was no comparison

by NotSoChiGuy In reply to That's a false comparison

I quoted a part that said it was wrong for Americans to be told to buy something from a third party and stated that this was already the case; in the form of being told you need to buy auto insurance (in most states, anyway).

I couldn't think of an adequate comparison to this bill that didn't involve the bodily functions of a domesticated bovine.

EDIT: I see where you may get the impression that the word similar in the previous post's title relays that I was trying to compare the two forms of insurance. Not the case, as stated. Was referring to the state of being mandated by the government to go to a third party to be 'in compliance with the law'.

Collapse -

Point taken, although. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to There was no comparison

..... I would imagine a person could get an exemption in any state if it could be proved that that person has the financial wherewithal to personally cover any possible liability claims. But then again, anyone with pockets that deep would gladly purchase liability insurance to keep people's hands out of them.

Collapse -

You can choose

by TonytheTiger In reply to There was no comparison

not to drive. Many in cities do.

Collapse -

Bad comparison - I don't have to buy car insurance IF

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Already a precedence for ...

I don't want to drive a car on public roads. Millions of Americans don't own or operate automobiles, choosing to using public transportation instead. Their choice exempts them from the auto insurance 'requirements', either collision or comprehensive as Max pointed out. There is no such exemption in the health insurance mandate; it's like requiring those who don't drive or own cars to purchase auto insurance anyway.

I was undecided on the passage of this package until a couple of weeks ago, then reached a decision. I understand the reasoning behind this mandate; it's needed if the insurance companies are going to be required to accept people with pre-existing conditions. I decided this mandate is not worth that 'benefit'.

If people want affordable health insurance, they should begin paying for it BEFORE their spleens rupture or they get AIDS. If they aren't willing to do be responsible for their own economic future, I fully support the insurance company's option to refuse to accept them or to accept them at higher rates. You may be able to convince me that children born with a medical condition should be accepted at the same rate as other children, but parents should already coverage for their children when the kids start school.

This position is not meant as a condemnation of the entire bill, just the 'mandatory purchase by consumers / mandatory acceptance by insurers' portions.

Collapse -

Like I said in the other post....

by NotSoChiGuy In reply to Bad comparison - I don't ...

...I wasn't comparing Auto insurance to Health Care. I just stated that there was already a precedence in place for the government telling people they had to buy something in order to be in compliance.

I apologize if the way it was worded (the title, specifically) implied otherwise.

To elaborate on the point further though, you can opt out of the US plan: move to another country. It is about as realistic an alternative as not driving nowadays!

Related Discussions

Related Forums