Won't deferring the individual mandate be a fiscal time bomb? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2024, 02:41:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Won't deferring the individual mandate be a fiscal time bomb? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Won't deferring the individual mandate be a fiscal time bomb?  (Read 4783 times)
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW
« on: October 03, 2013, 07:28:12 PM »

Maybe what the Pubs mean is that they want to defer the whole Obamacare concept for individuals for a year, so those with pre-exisiting conditions can twist slowly, slowly in the wind for another year. That would close the circle. But if that is the case, for some reason the Pubs don't phrase it that way now do they?  Tongue

Everyone knows that if the GOP gets a one-year delay here, they'll demand another one-year delay next year or they'll shut down the government again. To them, ObamaCare will never be ready for primetime, and the goal is to delay until they can destroy.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2013, 10:34:36 PM »

Wouldn't it be more rational to pay the tax than to buy insurance?

No. Paying the tax is the irrational choice. In exchange for paying the tax, which will eventually rise to 2.5% of your yearly income, you literally get nothing. When you pay for insurance, which will come with a check from the feds to help you afford it, you get something. Something is better than nothing, you see.

A 29-year-old in California with an income of $25,000 has two options:

Pay a $52 monthly tax to get $0 worth of coverage.
Pay $144 monthly for insurance to get $229 worth of coverage.

Wouldn't the rational person just pay the extra $92 a month for health insurance? Even if it's a "bad deal" at the $229 level, it's certainly worth it at $144.

If you are in catastrophic accident, it won't matter whether you have insurance.  And if you develop a chronic condition, you can buy insurance.

Without insurance, many chronic conditions will go undiagnosed long enough to cause serious adverse health effects. Passing on insurance rules out some very basic screenings that could literally cost a 29-year-old his testicles to cancer. Or a woman at risk of early breast cancer. These things happen, and without insurance, they destroy. Lack of access to healthcare also increases costs of obtaining doctor services when needed, leaving people hesitant to call an ambulance at the first signs of a heart attack. It also increases the costs of prescription drugs, which encourages the mentally ill to skip their meds. Do you know what CVS charges without insurance? I mean, good lord.

Catastrophic accidents, meanwhile, will ruin you financially. If someone is poor enough to skip on health care, they're poor enough to be destroyed by a single medical bill. And if the poor are getting "free" care now anyway, who do you think is paying for that "free"? It's you, your insurance company, and the federal government. Society pays no matter what, so why does it matter if it takes the form of ObamaCare? Do you think poor people are going to be wrongly encouraged to get more sick than otherwise?

I don't see how the Dems can successfully make the argument that healthy people have to subsidize unhealthy people.

That is literally what health insurance is.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2013, 11:36:14 AM »

$52 is 2.5%.  You said eventually.  What is it in 2014?  The income tax on $25,000 is $1800 per year.  $2400 is not that much more.

The typical 29-year-old doesn't have $144/monthly medical costs, let alone $229/monthly worth of medical costs, so even at the subsidized price, it does not have the value you attribute to it.  If you live in a 3rd floor walk-up studio apartment, a lawnmower "worth" $229 that you can buy for $144 is not a good deal.

Do you really think the reason people get insurance is to pay for routine expenses? That's ... not accurate at all.

Web suggests that there are not basic screening tests for testicular cancer.   A mammogram is around $100.

OH GOD NO THEN WHY HAS MY DOCTOR BEEN GRABBING ME THERE

Catastrophic accidents, meanwhile, will ruin you financially.
In which case you file bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy is financial ruin.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2013, 07:04:51 PM »

That $25K earner may not be buying a house, but he many need to take out a loan for a used car when his current one dies. Or maybe he'd like access to a simple credit card at a reasonable APR. Or a good rate on car insurance. Or to be able to use a regular cell phone instead of a prepaid one you buy cards for at the grocery store. Or to be able to set up cable TV service without paying a massive deposit. Or to be able to rent an apartment from anyone smart enough to do a credit check.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2013, 09:04:15 PM »

Not going bankrupt due to a major health emergency is instant gratification?

Typical Californian (29 YO; $25,000 year salary): Yo.
Do-Gooder: Yo, how's the condo?
TC (glares): Like dude, I make $2000 a month.  I'm sleeping on the couch at my friend, and help with the food.

You think the typical Californian lives on his friend's couch?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 10 queries.