Prevention is the best medicine when it comes to avoiding surprise medical bills! Learn more.

 

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
192
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

192 Views
Message 21 of 74

As is often repeated here, other countries have universal health care and not all of them are of the single payer type - some are hybrids of public/private systems.  These other countries have various ways of forcing their citizens to get covered and stay covered without relying on a tax penalty.

 

Let's take Australia - they use a premium surcharge - similar to what our Medicare does with late sign ups for Medicare Part B and/or Part D - an amount added on to the monthly premium for signing up after a stated deadline.

 

Australian Private Health.gov.au.- Lifetime Health Cover"

 

To explain it this ABC.net Austrailian site simplifies it for these young people being affected:

ABC.net.au 04/05/2017 - What to make of private health insurance if you're about to hit your 30s

 

from the link - a little out of order since I am putting the explanation of the policy 1st -

p.s. "Medicare" is what they call their public system.  - Austrailia has both a public system and a private system.

 

What's the point of the Lifetime Health Cover initiative?

 

The basic idea is that the more people who have private health insurance, the less reliance there is on the government-funded Medicare system. Currently, about half of all Australians have private health insurance.

 

But there's another reason the Federal Government wants younger people to have private health insurance: this makes it cheaper for everyone else.

 

That's because younger people are effectively subsidising the cost for older people, who pay the same amount for private health insurance but are more likely to be using it.

 

"Your young self is subsidising your older self, because in 50 years time you'll be wanting younger people to be subsidising your insurance," said Stephen Duckett, a health policy expert at the Grattan Institute.

 

Isn't there also a Medicare levy surcharge?

Yes.

Dr Duckett says this is actually the main thing you should consider when looking at whether private health insurance is worth it to you.

The surcharge kicks in at $90,000 income for singles and $180,000 for families. It starts at 1 per cent of your income and rises to 1.5 per cent for the highest earners.

So if you’re single and your taxable income is $90,000, that's an extra $900 that you have to pay in tax.

But you don't have to pay this surcharge if you have private health insurance.

 

If you're about to hit your 30s and you haven't yet got private health insurance, we've got bad news: either you get it now, or it'll become increasingly more expensive if you ever do decide to get it down the track.

 

You can blame the "Lifetime Health Cover" initiative for that. Basically, the Federal Government is trying to force your hand.. . . .

 

When do I need to decide by?

 

If you want to avoid paying more in the future for private health insurance, you'll need to decide by July 1 following your 31st birthday.

 

How much more will private health insurance cost in the future if I don't get it now?

If you decide to get health insurance later, you'll need to pay an extra 2 per cent for each year you didn't have hospital cover over the age of 30.

It adds up. By the time you're 40, that's an additional 20 per cent.

The cost of top family hospital cover averages about $4,500 annually, while for singles it's $1,250. So a 20 per cent loading means you'd be paying an additional $900 and $250, respectively.

 

read more at the above link ~

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
192
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
190
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

190 Views
Message 22 of 74

However, as things are, if a 47 year old man who has been working and making good money but never bought insurance and suddenly gets a bad diagnosis should not be entitled to anything. It's like calling the insurance company as the fire department arrives at your burning house.

 

"Has been working and making good money". If he's not making "good money" and goes without health insurance, gets very sick and decides to scrape enough money together to buy insurance, the insurance company will deny him a health insurance policy. The insurance company becomes the "death panels".

 

With the ACA, if you become very sick, you have to wait for the next enrollment, but you won't be denied.

 

And with universal healthcarre, no death panels - at all.

 

healthcare death panels.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
190
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
197
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

197 Views
Message 23 of 74

@CriticalThinking wrote:

RK said, "It would be nice if ct would offer his views of the the topic, not other posters'

 

I just did, but since RK ignored it, I'll repeat what I said earlier.

 

Obamacare was far from perfect, but it changed how we pay for health insurance in a very positive manner. 

  • A significant percentage of Americans, who have pre-existing conditions, are no longer charged extra for healh insurance. 
  • All important "Preventive Care" is now FREE to patients
  • Low lifes, who can afford health insurance but don't buy it, are now penalized for living off the taxpayer. Wait a second! That was true until the Trump Administration did away with the fabulous "individual mandate".

rk agrees with the last point. Since the law says that a person cannot be denied care, a person who can afford to purchase insurance should.

 

rk also feels that preexisting conditions should not be a bar to getting insurance - IF - the first point is dealt with. However, as things are, a 47 year old man who has been working and making good money but never bought insurance and suddenly gets a bad diagnosis should not be entitled to anything. It's like calling the insurance company as the fire department arrives at your burning house.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
197
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
143
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

143 Views
Message 24 of 74

Dismantling Obamacare will hurt hospitals, too. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
143
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
129
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

129 Views
Message 25 of 74

I remember when the Public Option had a chance of becoming a reality. During that time the health insurance stocks started sliding downward on Wall Street.

When the Public Option looked like it wasn't going to make it into the ACA, suddenly all the major health insurance stocks shot up.

 

When this week the Federal Judge in Texas struck down the ACA, health insurance stocks slid down again. 

 

Health-Care Stocks Plunge After Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional


Hospital and health insurer stocks plunged Monday after a federal judge in Texas ruled former President Barack Obama's signature health law, the Affordable Care Act, unconstitutional.


Shares of HCA Healthcare, the largest for-profit U.S. hospital operator, fell 2.9 percent Monday.
Shares of insurer Cigna closed down 3.3 percent.
Health-care service company Centene slid 4.7 percent.
Managed health company Molina Healthcare plunged 8.9 percent.
Tenet Healthcare fell 6.8 percent.


The Health Care Select Sector fell 2 percent.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/17/insurer-hospital-stocks-plunge-after-obamacare-ruled-unconstitutiona...

 

As I'm posting this, I hear Sue Herrera on the Nightly Business Report say...since the Federal Judge struck down the ACA "investors are not sure what to do" about their healthcare stocks.

 

The ACA is a bonanza for the health insurance companies - but they still want more.

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
129
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
136
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

136 Views
Message 26 of 74

52,

 

Trump promised to replace our Heratage Foundation crafted Republican promoted Obamacare program with something "better". When are Trump's people going to unfold it?

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
136
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
146
Views

OBAMACARE

146 Views
Message 27 of 74

RK said, "It would be nice if ct would offer his views of the the topic, not other posters'

 

I just did, but since RK ignored it, I'll repeat what I said earlier.

 

Obamacare was far from perfect, but it changed how we pay for health insurance in a very positive manner. 

  • A significant percentage of Americans, who have pre-existing conditions, are no longer charged extra for healh insurance. 
  • All important "Preventive Care" is now FREE to patients
  • Low lifes, who can afford health insurance but don't buy it, are now penalized for living off the taxpayer. Wait a second! That was true until the Trump Administration did away with the fabulous "individual mandate".
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
146
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
145
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

145 Views
Message 28 of 74

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:Again - if you want to expand the program for the poor, why involve everyone else. Just expand the existing welfare program.

Because "involving all" in a national single payer health care program like 'Medicare For All' would benefit everyone and bring down the costs of health care while improving the quality of it.


Medicare for all would cost the U.S. $32.6 trillion dollars.  How would you like your income taxes doubled?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/study-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-32-6-tri...


Here's what that study actually said: Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years.

 

We ALREADY SPENT $3.4 TRILLION on health care in 2017, and projections are for the amount to grow by AT LEAST 5.5% EVERY YEAR.

 

So, following the Republican lead (do NOTHING EVER) we will spend

$43.8 TRILLION over 10 years

and STILL have 30 million Americans with NO HEALTH INSURANCE

 

Just another reason we must never allow another Republican to win an election if the Nation is to survive - THEY CANNOT DO SIMPLE MATH AND WANT TO RUN OUR ECONOMY!


Using your "simple math" and $3.26 trillion additional each year, each person (assuming 300 million people) would have an additional bill of $10,867.  Of course, liberals will want to push that burden on someone else.  Check out the math.


It's not that simple. Have you even read HR 676 to see where the money comes from?  Obviously you haven't. Employers will pay a tax, taking much of the burden you set at $10,000 per person. Read something before you criticize it. A individual's cost in taxes would be less than they pay for health insurance premiums.


Exactly so Chasky - The Government will simply become an intermediary between the individual and the insurance company, and between the insurance company and the care provider. Everyone will get health care for the same low rates the insurance industry has already negotiated, there will be no bills marked "uncollectable", there will be only one set of forms used for billing and collection greatly reducing overhead, and NOBODY will ever have to argue with their provider or insurance company again over a bill.

 

YOU will still select your own insurance company and pick your own doctor. The only doctors you CAN'T pick are those who will continue to operate "botique practices" where they are like lawyers on retainer - they get money (lots of it) every month from their patients, and then treat them IMMEDIATELY when a problem arrises, or doctors who will simply refuse to accept you.

 

By the way, as an aid to the mathematically challenged:

We spent $3.4 TRILLION for health care in 2017. That amount is projected to continue to increase at at least 5.5% each year, so the next ten years of costs would be: 3.4+3.6+3.8+4.0+4.2+4.4+4.7+4.9+5.2+5.5=$43.7Trillion in 10 years, the cost WITHOUT "Medicare for All" aka Universal Coverage, Single Payer.



@Olderscout66 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:Again - if you want to expand the program for the poor, why involve everyone else. Just expand the existing welfare program.

Because "involving all" in a national single payer health care program like 'Medicare For All' would benefit everyone and bring down the costs of health care while improving the quality of it.


Medicare for all would cost the U.S. $32.6 trillion dollars.  How would you like your income taxes doubled?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/study-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-32-6-tri...


Here's what that study actually said: Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years.

 

We ALREADY SPENT $3.4 TRILLION on health care in 2017, and projections are for the amount to grow by AT LEAST 5.5% EVERY YEAR.

 

So, following the Republican lead (do NOTHING EVER) we will spend

$43.8 TRILLION over 10 years

and STILL have 30 million Americans with NO HEALTH INSURANCE

 

Just another reason we must never allow another Republican to win an election if the Nation is to survive - THEY CANNOT DO SIMPLE MATH AND WANT TO RUN OUR ECONOMY!


Using your "simple math" and $3.26 trillion additional each year, each person (assuming 300 million people) would have an additional bill of $10,867.  Of course, liberals will want to push that burden on someone else.  Check out the math.


It's not that simple. Have you even read HR 676 to see where the money comes from?  Obviously you haven't. Employers will pay a tax, taking much of the burden you set at $10,000 per person. Read something before you criticize it. A individual's cost in taxes would be less than they pay for health insurance premiums.


Exactly so Chasky - The Government will simply become an intermediary between the individual and the insurance company, and between the insurance company and the care provider. Everyone will get health care for the same low rates the insurance industry has already negotiated, there will be no bills marked "uncollectable", there will be only one set of forms used for billing and collection greatly reducing overhead, and NOBODY will ever have to argue with their provider or insurance company again over a bill.

 

YOU will still select your own insurance company and pick your own doctor. The only doctors you CAN'T pick are those who will continue to operate "botique practices" where they are like lawyers on retainer - they get money (lots of it) every month from their patients, and then treat them IMMEDIATELY when a problem arrises, or doctors who will simply refuse to accept you.

 

By the way, as an aid to the mathematically challenged:

We spent $3.4 TRILLION for health care in 2017. That amount is projected to continue to increase at at least 5.5% each year, so the next ten years of costs would be: 3.4+3.6+3.8+4.0+4.2+4.4+4.7+4.9+5.2+5.5=$43.7Trillion in 10 years, the cost WITHOUT "Medicare for All" aka Universal Coverage, Single Payer.


Your numbers are usually so far off that they can be ignored. But what can't be ignored is "Medicare for all" - Medicare is a program that people pay into for many years and must be seniors to receive benefits. It is not a welfare program. So, you will need a new name.

 

You want socialized medicine (and everything else). Just defend that without playing games with all this tippy-toeing around.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
145
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
143
Views

OBAMACARE

143 Views
Message 29 of 74

RK said, "It would be nice if ct would offer his views of the the topic, not other posters'

 

I just did, but since RK ignored it, I'll repeat what I said earlier.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
143
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
128
Views

Re: OBAMACARE

128 Views
Message 30 of 74

@CriticalThinking wrote:

This is RK doing what he always does, changing the subject. The issue of Obamacare does not revolve around the Medicaid portion of the plan. Medicaid's been around for decades and was simply incorporated into the ACA.

 

That's not the issue with Obamacare and RK knows it. But he almost always changes the subject when he  he has no other argument.


As he always does, rk is responding to the contributions of other posters. Rather than nit-picking them he is engaging in an exchange of ideas.

 

There are posters who have brought up the poor and rk has responded. 

 

It would be nice if ct would offer his views of the the topic, not other posters.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
128
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors