Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama administration issues rules for individual mandate, America continues to exist (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, I agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tofumagoo, arealniceguy

    That people should get signed up. I just not sure how a someone in their mid twenties, who's healthy and doesn't need regular doctor care would benefit from purchasing a policy and paying a monthly premium(even a subsidized one) when the yearly penalty is 95 bucks.

    It's seems counter intuitive to tell someone they should maintain insurance 'just in case' when they can save money and buy it if they need it.

    Perhaps the number of people that fall into that category will be small. I suspect that a large group of people will still continue to utilize their employer provided healthcare.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:04:17 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The penalty is only (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tapu dali, LOrion

      95 bucks for the first year. There are a lot of people out there who don't even know what choices they have. I think that's the main impediment to getting people signed up. It's not that people don't want insurance, it's that a lot of people who would buy insurance don't even know about the penalty and subsidy, and in some cases don't even know what the benefits of having insurance would be.

      "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

      by randomfacts on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:23:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This has always been my concern. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, randomfacts, GayHillbilly

        The beauty of (ahem) single-payer is that everybody is paret of the pool, ill and well alike, reducing overall individual insurance costs.

        It is, indeed, the PPACA's fatal flaw. If enough 20 and 30 somerhings decide to opt out, the program is in trouble.

        I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- S.I. Hayakawa

        by tapu dali on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:19:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll opt out (0+ / 0-)

          I see no reason why I should pay for it when I'm healthy rather than just buy it if I happen to get sick.

          •  Playing with fire, but I see your point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elginblt, GayHillbilly

            Trouble is, something like an emergency appendix removal, a car crash, really any emergency situation and you won't have time to "buy it" when you need it.  Your emergency room bills will bankrupt you if you aren't independently wealthy and you don't have insurance.  

            I understand your point but you're really toeing the line on your financial health by trying to game the system to save yourself a thousand dollars or so a year...

            With that said, a single payer system where everyone is enrolled is the solution to this but... yeah.  We're not there yet.

            [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

            by rabel on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:58:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  correct (0+ / 0-)

              but then it's not "health insurance", it's "anti-bankruptcy insurance". I don't have much to lose in bankruptcy anyways.

              it's not financially worth it for me to buy a plan that covers normal checkups, because those cost so much even though I'm young and healthy.  if I get catastrophic coverage, then that' snot really health insurance, it's bankruptcy protection.

            •  further (0+ / 0-)

              part of the point is that if I DID get sick, then I can just sign up for insurance then - they will have to take me.

              •  not if it's sudden (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You won't get coverage for bills you've already run up, and while you momentarily don't have anything to lose in bankruptcy, that won't always be the case.  If you apply for insurance after you're sick, the insurer could just take it's time processing your application. Also, don't assume bankruptcy will get you out of all bills. Remember how upset a lot of us were about the bankruptcy law back in I think it was 2005? There are personal debts that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. I don't know the details, but I know I don't want to learn the hard way.

                •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

                  But when we are talking about the calculation of premiums vs. chance if needing lots and lots of medical care, the fact that you can still get insurance for expensive but not sudden ailments makes it even less of a risk than it would otherwise be.

    •  because accidents happen (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozoozol, elginblt, lurkyloo

      and not everyone lives happily ever after.

      Jesus died to save you from Yahweh.

      by nolagrl on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:19:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would think some one in that group would still (0+ / 0-)

      have a benefit because they might want to get a flu shot (Any one with school age children will probably get the flu if they have not had the flu shot.) or get a STD check up after a hot one night stand they never planned on.

      Our money system is not what we have been led to believe. The creation of money has been "privatized," or taken over by private money lenders. Thomas Jefferson called them “bold and bankrupt adventurers just pretending to have money.” webofdebt

      by arealniceguy on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:13:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site