[Poll] Should the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act be repealed along with Obamacare?

[DjTj]

Have you looked into whether Obamacare will subsidize you, and to what extent? Isn't that a big part of the bill, helping people who can't pay for it?

Just FYI, Obamacare exempts “Individuals who cannot afford coverage”: If an employer offers coverage that would cost the employee more than 8 percent of his or her household income (for self-only coverage) that individual is exempt from the tax.

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/

So if an employer was offering a plan that cost $400/month, employees that are paid less than $5,000/month will not be fined under the law.

[The Evil Genius]

It's very very expensive for a free lancer.

~Bang

Hence the, if you had the money part.

To me, again if you had the money, spending 5k a year on insurance..or even 10k a year...especially as you get older, makes a hell of a lot more sense than spending 200k+ in medical bills when you, despite 50 years of clean living, contract cancer or some other extremely expensive health problem.

---------- Post added June-29th-2012 at 02:57 PM ----------

I suspect the reality is that most people over 60 have health costs that they cannot afford to pay out of pocket.

[No Excuses]

Isn't an economic assumption of ACA that premiums will go down for people with insurance? I'd assume that this is tied in to the fact that people without insurance won't be as much of a burden on the health care system under ACA.

[Destino]

Yes, if we oppose Obamacare, we want people to die of heart attacks in ER waiting rooms, and have their babies on the floor. Of course.

That's messed up man. You'd let them into waiting rooms when they can't afford to see a doctor? Someone with insurance might be forced to wait standing up or see their healthcare costs rise when more chairs are purchased. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

[The Evil Genius]

Isn't an economic assumption of ACA that premiums will go down for people with insurance? I'd assume that this is tied in to the fact that people without insurance won't be as much of a burden on the health care system under ACA.

That was always my understanding. The anti-Obomneycare peeps, however, maintain that these savings will never materialize.

[Bang]

Hence the, if you had the money part.

To me, again if you had the money, spending 5k a year on insurance..or even 10k a year...especially as you get older, makes a hell of a lot more sense than spending 200k+ in medical bills when you, despite 50 years of clean living, contract cancer or some other extremely expensive health problem.

It does, and it's been a quest. I've been lucky, that is for sure. And I don't owe anyone, so that is good.

~Bang

[ncr2h]

Honest question - am I missing something about insurance? The insurance company has to make a profit. If you were actually getting such a good deal paying $400/mo, then the insurance company would raise your rates. If I read this thread, I would be led to believe that there are companies who will literally take $400/mo and in return pay out $200K in medical bills. Where does the difference come from? Kind philanthropists who are shareholders of the insurance companies? For every person who gets a sweet deal on insurance (i.e. gets sick and racks up $200K in expenses charged through to his insurance), shouldn't there be a relatively large number of people who are getting ripped off?

[twa]

That was always my understanding. The anti-Obomneycare peeps, however, maintain that these savings will never materialize.

I've seen the premiums rise and projected to rise more...let me know when these savings materialise

the notion you can extend the availability of healthcare options and reduce it's costs is faulty imo

just as the supposed savings from reduced ER visits are a pipedream

add

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group, has said that the average family insurance premium in 2011 topped $15,000 -- a 9 percent increase from the year before, while premiums had climbed just 3 percent a year before the law went into effect.

[sjinhan]

Honest question - am I missing something about insurance? The insurance company has to make a profit. If you were actually getting such a good deal paying $400/mo, then the insurance company would raise your rates. If I read this thread, I would be led to believe that there are companies who will literally take $400/mo and in return pay out $200K in medical bills. Where does the difference come from? Kind philanthropists who are shareholders of the insurance companies? For every person who gets a sweet deal on insurance (i.e. gets sick and racks up $200K in expenses charged through to his insurance), shouldn't there be a relatively large number of people who are getting ripped off?

The risk is spread out general population... Insurance companies make money on the fact that most people under their plan would not put in claims for more than they are putting in. In return for the consumers, consumers have a safety net of insurance if by some awful chance that you are in fact one of the people that need $200k of treatment. So you should not consider it a rip off because you never got sick because you are still enjoying the peace of mind of a "safety net" while you are insured.

now this is all good if this was the end of it all...

the problem comes in when the hospitals are forced to give care and services to people who cannot pay for them. The hospitals which also need money to operate like any other business ends up having to charge the people with insurance more money in order to cover their losses on the patients that cannot pay up. Now if the hospitals did not have to take on this cost of servicing patients that cannot pay, then the hospitals' bottom line would improve and they would have more flexibilit in their prices. Over the LONG run the prices should come down as patients shop for better prices.

honorary_hog... I feel your pain because my parents are exactly in the situation that you are in. However, looking at the long term and not at an individual basis, I think some method universal healthcare is the way go. Maybe not having the "universial" healthcare cover for EVERYTHING but at least the basic doctor's visits and preventative health check ups. For the big ticket items for people who are over certain age, I don't think we should be covering everything.

In some countries like in Korea, the copay for their national health care might be 30-40% billable. Despite lower HC costs in Korea, this amount can be significant. Whats the solution? The private insurance sector is selling additional insurance that covers the copay that the national health insurance does not. People say that the national health care will wipe out the private health insurance industry in the USA but I doubt that. Maybe health insurance companies way of operating might change but they will adapt and find a niche to survive and do business. I know that US insurances can do this. How do I know? Well my wife and her family members are insuranced to the max in South Korea on top of national health care and the provider of this insurance is MetLife.

---------- Post added June-29th-2012 at 06:41 PM ----------

I've seen the premiums rise and projected to rise more...let me know when these savings materialise

the notion you can extend the availability of healthcare options and reduce it's costs is faulty imo

just as the supposed savings from reduced ER visits are a pipedream

add

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group, has said that the average family insurance premium in 2011 topped $15,000 -- a 9 percent increase from the year before, while premiums had climbed just 3 percent a year before the law went into effect.

I think in the short term the costs will go up and eventually in the long term the HC will have to go down unless there is price fixing going on among the doctors.

If we are able to reduce the amount of non-paying patients for the hospitals then it should help them on their bottom line. Over the long term the prices should go down as patients shop prices between hospitals and some healthy competition between the hospitals for business.

---------- Post added June-29th-2012 at 06:49 PM ----------

There is a national health insurance plan that can actually work out for the general public... and you know what.... there is still a large private health insurance industry along side with the national health care....

please read this which does real good job of covering the pros and cons of the korean system

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html

While Korean healthcare system is far from perfect, the Korean thinks that its benefits easily outweigh the cost. This is especially so because even some of its perceived costs are, in fact, benefits when the national health is considered as a whole.

First, the complaint of “five minute diagnosis” is hardly a real, dire problem. By incentivizing doctors to see many patients at a primary care level, Korean health insurance is most likely preventing a more serious and more expensive disease down the road. Indeed, a “five minute diagnosis” that costs around $ 3 is a problem that 45 million uninsured people in America will gladly take. Same with the “crowded top hospitals” problem – the uninsured of America will gladly take a cheap visit to the nation’s finest hospitals even if the wait takes a few months.

Korea’s other problems are no worse than any other country’s. In fact, because there is a single entity in charge of overseeing the entire healthcare system, it is much easier for Korea to provide a systematic solution for a systematic problem.

Some may consider the fact that Korean national health insurance only covers around 55 percent of the total healthcare cost to be problematic. This may be true if one takes the idea of guaranteed socialized medicine seriously. But for fiscal conservatives with some measure of compassion for the plight of the uninsured, this could be an attractive balance. While corruption is definitely still a problem with Korean government, the NHIC is surprisingly efficient and well-run. It does a great job squeezing out maximum value out of the tax it receives. What’s not to like?

[Mad Mike]

Have you looked into whether Obamacare will subsidize you, and to what extent? Isn't that a big part of the bill, helping people who can't pay for it?

I've been trying to get insurance with a pre-existing heart condition: Denied.

That is except for rip off companies like this who tried to sign me up today... http://www.consumeraffairs.com/insurance/homeland_healthcare.html

Fortunately, thanks to Obamacare I have one option... https://www.pcip.gov/Eligibility.html

In the end I'm going to have to go back to one of the legit companies who told me up front they couldn't cover me and go through the formal application process in order to get a letter of denial. But for the first time I have an option.

Mitt Romney and the republicans want to take that away from me. They can kiss my :moon: