Skip to comments.Are you ready for Obamacare's 'Mandate Plus?' (Have you heard of the "late enrollment fee"? )
Posted on 01/14/2013 7:59:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Not a bug - a feature.
The individual mandate penalties will be pretty weak as they are phased in over two years - only $95 when they start in 2014, much less than it costs to buy insurance. And yet, everyone with pre-existing conditions will have to be accepted for coverage right away.
That's why insurance companies are telling the administration the mandate won't be enough for the first two years. They want more incentives - such as a late enrollment fee - to get healthy people to sign up quickly. Without getting the healthy folks in, the fear is that everyone's health insurance premiums could shoot through the roof when all those sick people get their coverage.
The idea is being called "mandate plus" - because some of the ideas were floated by health experts last year as replacements, in case the Supreme Court struck the mandate down. Now that the mandate is here to stay, insurance companies and some policy experts say the other ideas should go hand in hand with the coverage requirement to make the whole system work - and be affordable.
The states could impose some of these incentives, too, and they could become a future lobbying battleground. But right now, the insurers are focused on persuading the Department of Health and Human Services to add them on its own.
What do you suppose is going to happen when Medicaid expansion dumps 15 million new patients on to the health care system? Millions will be clamoring for their "free" health care. Meanwhile, healthy "young invincibles" will opt out and choose to pay the fine rather than thousands of dollars in health insurance costs.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Covering a per-existing condition is not insurance. It is akin to selling fire insurance after the hose has already caught fire.
I can see why they need these but does the passed bill allow additional fines, really a increase in the fine by HSS without a change in law?
Silly insurance companies. They just don’t get it.
It’s just about time for them to go away now.
Lots of luck obamugabe ~ ain't gonna' happen.
Just like to note that when you put your medical care program under the administration of Congress you encounter institutional delay of a Constitutional sort ~ and your life will be put in the balance as they endlessly debate everything they can.
Much better to be in charge of your own medical care.
The purpose of Obamacare is not to get everyone on insurance, but rather to make private medical insurance completely inviable as a business thus "requiring" the government step in as the sole source for medical payments.
It's about control, not medical care.
THEY are wrong.
Mandate plus- is that the same as being anally raped with a gratuitous reach around?
The ObamaCare train wreck continues...........
With the Supreme Court having ruled that the various fees, fines and other nonsense in ObamaKKKare are TAXES, any changes will need to go to the House and Senate for action.
I’m positive that “somewhere” there is a federal judge who is willing to rule that Obamacare has an open ended mandate on Taxes and that the “Secretary” can raise them whenever she pleases.
(I’m really not sure about putting a sarcasm tag on this, so I won’t.)
then : we have to pass it before we find out what’s in it.
now : we have to enact it before we find out what’s in it.
soon : we will have to pay for it before we find out what’s in it.
Nah, that notion is from the olden days. We have Dear Leader now. He can just snap his fingers and it will be done.
Is there any way I can opt out of this Obamakare Medicare nightmare? If it’s going to finance abortion, I don’t want it.
I know I can’t stop them from taking what they want to out of my check; but I don’t want to participate in their Let’s Play Doctor game. I’ll pay cash for my own once a year visit to the Nurse Practitioner.
Yeah, once you pay for it, you will find you will be denied what was never in it for you! LOL
In that light it is significant that even the Leftwingtard fanatics on the USSC didn't make any attempt at all to carve out a ruling that ObamaKKKare was a user fee.
So, all those fees and fines are just taxes and need to go back to Congress for any changes. I can even envision a future USSC not well disposed toward the ObamaKKKare bureaucracy ruling that even the individual fees paid to insurance companies are, in fact, taxes!
You could end up quickly with no insurance companies, and no government involvement in medical care, and no medical establishment to which individuals could turn for help.
The possibility for total destruction of medical care in the United States has been built into ObamaKKKare
The only way you can eliminate abortion in America at this time is to eliminate abortionists and their supporters. That’s where we stand at this moment. Things may change. In the meantime obamugabe thinks you have a moral responsibility to pay for it or he will kill you.
** only $95 when they start in 2014, much less than it costs to buy insurance.**
I know of a medical insurance that only costs $99 a month. Don’t believe this Obamacare nonsense.
If you want to know what it is, you will have to FReepmail me.
Basic coverage only, not vision and dental.
With vision and dental — it is only $138 a month.
That is what I was getting at.
It didnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the low ‘fines’ with the mandates would put insurance companies out of business as the sick and old ( say 55 to 65) stay in the pool while the others flee until they get sick.
Then some Rs will be tempted to raise the fines to keep the companies in business, versus they all go to medicaid after the companies leave the business/
There's a new balance on the equation ~ and this time there's no Mr. Nice Guy. The leftists must give up their beliefs or leave the country.
??? I think winning the elected just embolded them.
Example : O says he will not negotiate on debt limit, that House Rs will give him that ‘for free’. He seems confident that he is in charge.
The Dems seem convinced that Rs will not win another National election for a decade.
They dont seem to be packing to go anywhere.
What do you call a pre existing condition on the scenario below which is very real:
An individual goes to work full time at age 22 after completing 4 years of college. He works for three different companies during his career. During that time he had employer health care coverage to which he contributed. Economic theory would suggest the employer paid portion of the health care insurance coverage was part of his compensation.
At age 51 he is stricken with cancer while still employed. After a lengthy treatment, the cancer goes into remission but there is the potential for it to occur again at a later date. His endocrine system is damaged due to the cancer and he must take drugs daily for the rest of his life.
At age 55 the company executes a downsizing and he is involuntarily terminated. He immediately starts an aggressive job search and begins paying 100% of his health insurance coverage under Cobra. He is unsuccessful in finding full time employment but is able to find part time consulting work with two companies at a much lower income level with no benefits. After 18 months the Cobra insurance expires. He cannot find a private insurer to cover him and his family due to the preexisting condition even with an expensive high deductible policy.
Here is a person who has participated in the US health insurance system and paid into the system for 30 years. He has also been a taxpayer his entire working career, even now when he is working part time doing what he can in this tough economy. Since has worked for multiple employers he has been covered by multiple insurance companies, so he has no long standing relationship with any one insurance company. His preexisting condition occurred while he was a paying participant in the system. He is willing to continue paying for insurance, even at a high cost, but is being denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. What is your answer for this person?
1) Tough luck. That’s the way it is. Have a good life if you can. In this case the “market” fails to cover a few people and you just happen to be one.
2) A government mandate insurance companies cover citizens with preexisting conditions (i.e. the 2014 Obamacare requirement).
3) A high risk pool with extremely high premiums, deductibles and copays for people with preexisting conditions. If this is your choice, who should administer it - private companies, the states, the federal government? If you choose private companies and they don’t provide the pool, what do you do then? If someone has paid into the system for years, why should that person necessarily pay a higher cost for insurance?
4) Another idea?
We have a situation today where average middle class people who pay into the system for years can end up with a preexisting condition that prevents them from getting insurance. These people pay taxes and vote. If the conservative answer is “too bad the market doesn’t provide you insurance, tough luck” then Democrats pick up at least one additional voter and perhaps many given that most individuals have extended families and friends.
Do you have an answer other than “too bad”?
Millions won’t pay the fine or get insurance, creating the need for an IRS Gulag. http://www.futurnamics.com/gulag.php
That should be good for another 4 million vote loss in the next Presidential election, as well as the one after that.
Without the black vote the leftwingtards will need to assess their position and join or get out of the country.
That's what too much dope and untreated STDs will get you ~ an 8 million vote loss in effective strength in just a couple of elections!
The left is being pushed back hard ~
Didnt they win every non-white Demo including Asians?
I dont see the Hispanics shrinking in numbers anytime soon, they mult in # much faster than whites are esp now that illegals can work with O’s waiver, and lots get in-state-tuition discounts.
We lived in Germany for a while about twenty years ago, where our health insurance coverage (including dental) was about $50.00 a month.
The German system, by the way, is not a 'benefits' or welfare system-- it is an actuarial based national insurance system. It works for the following reasons:
1) as I said, it's based on real actuarial calculations of the country's population and probable health care costs
2) there are almost no malpractice lawsuits-- to sue a doctor you first have to have a determination of medical malpractice by a medical review board and then there's a table of compensation limiting the maximum compensation depending on the injury. If the lawyer asks for more money than is awarded, the amount is reduced by double the difference.
3) Everybody pays: the employed and employers split the insurance cost and the government pays for the unemployed/disabled/retired (the German pension system is actuarial also, not like SS), etc.
4) Every year a panel of physicians, government officials and insurance companies haggle over reimbursement rates and adjust the insurance premiums as needed.
Their system works and ours is a nightmare where you never know if a trip to the hospital will leave you bankrupt, and Obamacare has just taken the worst elements of our system and multiplied them.
We should just pay the Germans to run our system for us.
Otherwise, for the most part, East Asian voters are not statistically significant in terms of the error margins in those exit polls.
The Hawaii Democrat party is owned by the largest East Asian group in Hawaii ~ the Japanese Americans. They are also the labor union membership.
I have a pre-existing condition.
I cannot get insurance.
I have had to pay 100 percent out of pocket for my healthcare needs since day one.
My answer to this individual is, “welcome to the crowd”.
Also - not an Omugabe voter and holding me hostage with a sob story, ain’t going to change me.
Home, Auto etc is based upon your risk. If we had a one size fits all HSA for Catastrophic Insurance, i.e. rebuild your leg after a bus ran over it, it would be relatively cheap for everyone.
If you have a pre-existing, sometimes in Life Insurance their are niche carriers that will insure you for X ailment, but they will change you more.
Obama's model would work better at Church where we take care of each other, then gain, he wants us to worship the State.
Speaking of Churches, both Churches and Credit Unions are successful 501(c)(3) natural groups, they could offer health insurance, and would have been my way to go instead of Obamacare...
As the English colonies, and then the United States expanded those earlier settlers and business people DID NOT GO HOME, nor did they move to Mexico. Their descendants are still here!
They not only 'melt' in well, we probably ought to put it the other way, the late arriving English and Irish melt in well!
Someday you need to read the Booke of the Livinge and the Deade ~ a Jamestown census take in the 1620s after a war with the Indians.
It reads like the Viet Nam Veterans' Memorial ~ a sea of names from every land on every continent ~ some clearly from some named place, and others not so clearly.
More recent hispanic legal immigrants quickly find their place ~ and sort themselves out like everyone else has ever done. They'll ultimately fit in well.
some of us or our loved ones will die never having known what was in it
When it comes to polls in general, the May PEW Report revealed they are all down to a 9% average response rate, which puts them within range of being seriously distorted by dedicated minority groups.
So, no, the results are meaningless.
The reality is the Baby Boomers are getting into the higher death rate ranges. That's where the game is being played out.
“Then some Rs will be tempted to raise the fines to keep the companies in business”
Then some Rs will be tempted to raise the fines because fines are good for lobby business.
The reason the fake HillaryRomney lost. They smelled right through it.
Have the “insurance” cos. gone out of business in Massachusetts?
Don't they have a real fine/mandate unlike O-care? I mean one that hurts if you don't comply? unlike O care.
NY is a better example as they have the goodie mandates without the fine, so rates are very high there.
I have several answers:
1) It is not my problem just as it is not my problem if the person does not have a car or a new Rolex for that matter if they want one. It is though my option to help them if I choose to. FYI, I have done that in the past. Even once for an employee who had cancer of the cervix. We not only made sure that they had insurance we also paid them for a year while they were going through things and did not work. By the way, it never once came to mind that we should require that someone else, including the government be forced to pay for things.
2) The market can handle these high risks but if it cannot then indeed it is "too bad". Harsh? Maybe, but this is not or used to not be a socialist country. Forcing any third party, including insurance companies, to be forced to pay for the person in the situation you describe is theft. Period.
3) If someone has paid in to the system and that system was constructed as some kind of health savings plan then they should see some of that money back. But if they paid premiums for all those years in to a pool that covered events that were insured then the person paid for what they got. Thinking that the person is "owed" something after paying in money for years is just wrong headed. Insurance is designed to cover the loses, that is for sure, but that is not what it is for. It is for covering the "risks". Anyone that uses the "hey I paid in to it" does not understand what insurance really is. The federal government and Congress is a good example of this. They don't understand insurance. They think it should be sensible to sell fire insurance after the house has started to burn. This is actually the scenerio you are describing. I suggest you take a look at "federal flood insurance" too. It ain't insurance but that is a topic I do not want to get in to here. Too long.
So basically my answer is that your scenerio while sad is not my problem unless I choose to make it mine. Under no circumstances should I be required to make it my personal problem.
The notion that Democrats pick up another voter as you assert is likely accurate. But that does not make it right nor does it make the theft of money out of my pocket to pay for the plight of someone else, no matter how sad, right.
Recently, I had a parent who has been retired for many years find that as they put it they were "outliving their money". Did I think of a way to get the government to pay them more? Nope. Did I ask the government to come up with a way to take money from others to help them? Nope. My solution was simple, I figured out a way to pay them myself. And the problem was solved. But here is what pisses me off about your sad sack story here. When people in the situation you describe sell their votes to the government and in return the government STEALS from me that means that they have just dug in to the same pocket that I use to pay for my parents in their golden years. It steals from the same pocket that I used to help my employee with cancer. It steals from the same pocket I use to help others whenever I can. So my reponse is not only "too bad" I add "how dare you" in addition to that!
Corporate government: the alliance and combination of socialist business and socialist government. Who would have guessed? Captain obvious, maybe?
Interesting - so the problem isn’t young white folks like me. :) Also interesting that we are just as conservative as the boomers, if not more so. Gosh. Imagine that?
Look at the white people column again.
As you state, insurance is the pooling of funds to cover risk. For those who buy insurance, and continue to pay the premiums, when the risk event occurs the insurance pays off. Those who choose not to purchase insurance bear the full risk and if a risk event occurs must absorb the full loss.
If I have a fire and I’m insured, the insurance company pays for the loss. I then rebuild the house and continue to pay insurance. If the house burns down a second time my homeowner’s insurance again pays to restore the house up to the limits of the policy. Unless there is fraud, the first fire (i.e. the preexisting condition) does not prevent me from continuing my insurance or being reimbursed if I have another fire.
Private health insurance is different in the US market due primarily to the lack of national portability. Ignore employer group insurance. If I buy an individual policy in New York, then move to Florida I cannot take my health insurance policy, and coverage, with me. I have to buy a new policy in Florida. If while covered by insurance in New York I am treated for cancer, when I move to Florida and try to buy insurance the cancer is considered a preexisting condition and may prevent me from purchasing health insurance in Florida. This has nothing to do with me expecting someone else to pay for my health care. I’ve paid for my health care prior to my move and wish to continue paying for my insurance coverage at my new location. The problem is the preexisting condition, which occurred when I was covered by insurance in another state, prevents me from buying insurance based on the way the system is constructed today. The same thing occurs if I lose my job (and employer health care coverage) and become self employed. I am willing to continue to pay the premiums for my existing policy/coverage, but that option ends when Cobra ends.
I suggest a conservative answer to the situation is to permit and encourage a national market for insurance which includes the policy portability which does not exist in our current state regulated market. Along with portability, the health insurance laws should allow employees in group plans to have the option of contracting directly with insurance companies instead of the contract being between the insurance company and the employer. With complete plan portability, the preexisting problem I outlined is eliminated for people who are actually paying into the system. If I lose my job with a company, as long as continue to pay the premium for my policy I still have insurance. If I move from New York to Florida, I do not have to buy a new insurance policy, my existing health insurance policy continues as long as I pay the premium. If I’m hired by a new employer who offers health insurance benefits, the new employer can pay whatever amount per employee its health insurance benefit equates to directly to the company providing my health insurance.
While I agree with you in principle that this isn’t your problem, or my problem, the reality is the elected representatives of the people have decided it is our problem. Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the electorate, if the answer we conservatives provide to every problem debated in the political arena is “too bad”, we are going to see more of our property and liberty taken from us by government. Perhaps it is time for us to engage in the debate by offering practical and real solutions. One reason we lost the healthcare debate is we did not provide alternatives that addressed the issues and concerns raised by the opposition, as well as many citizens, when we had control of Congress and the White House. Once the Democrats captured Congress and the White House they had the opportunity to address the problem in a way that made it our problem.
More national problems, or perceived problems, are going to be addressed by Congress in the near future. They include immigration, college education funding, gun control, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and funding the increasing size of government. I’m afraid “too bad” isn’t going to be an acceptable answer to the Democrats and their voters. If “too bad” is all we have to offer, the elected representatives will choose other options and in doing so continue to take our property and infringe on our liberty.
See my response (#44) to isthisnickcool.
In principle I agree with you. Unfortunately, it appears 51% of the American people and the majority our elected representatives do not. I fear if we continue to engage in debate by offering “welcome to the crowd” as our answer, we will continue to lose at the ballot box and suffer the consequences.
“I fear if we continue to engage in debate by offering welcome to the crowd as our answer, we will continue to lose at the ballot box and suffer the consequences.”
This was said once too about slavery. I have no right to claim the fruits of other’s labors to fulfill my needs and desires. Nor does anyone else have claim to mine.
It is injust. Perpetuating an injustice to desire ephemeral popularity is a losing cause for team conservative.
I understand everything you said. Maybe health and disability insurance should be open to the same restraints as far as portability as life insurance is. I don’t believe that this should apply to property and casualty lines. I believe that property and casualty lines regulation should stay with the states. Local overview has made for a very stable market in the P&C lines. Unlike health and disability insurance property and casualty insurance is based on localized risk factors such as location, construction, use, etc. while health and disability is based on actuarial experience of human beings. In the latter regard allowing for the pooling of risk across a broader base would allow for better rates.
My view is that the pooling of health and diability policies among a broader base by allowing for multi-state grouping of risks (people) would likely by itself have solved the “health care” issue in the United States.
Your analogy regarding the fire insurance and house rebuilding after a fire is nonsensical. The first fire is not a pre-existing condition once the house is rebuilt. The house is no longer on fire.
As far as the other issues such as college education (I paid for my own and my child) while the answer “too bad” may not be an answer some want to hear my response is “too bad” we have morons in Washington and in the White House passing laws that are unconstitutional. It is also “too bad” that the Supreme Court has lost its mind. Things are what they are and if conservatives must become liberals, meaning we must in the words of Texan Clayton Williams “relax and enjoy it” you can count me out. If the ship is going to sink I prefer not to help it. Actually, I’m not going for along for the ride because there are always ways around obstacles.
I pay my own way as well. My first paying job at age 6 working on a neighbor’s farm for 25 cents a day. I cleaned toilets, dug ditches, threw newspapers, hauled furniture, mowed yards, and painted houses for cash in hand before I was old enough to work my way through college with paycheck jobs and start climbing the corporate ladder. I also paid for the portion of my child’s education she could not cover herself while working during her school years. I’ve never asked anyone or any entity for a hand for me or my family and I never intend to do so.
I also know what it is like to lose a job, lose employer paid health insurance, and not be able to buy health insurance at any price due to preexisting conditions which occurred while insured under an employer plan. Fortunately I saved a enough of my income and to able to pay for my medical care on my own. I’ve also not applied for the Social Security disability payments for which i am eligible because I prefer to be self reliant. I might add that Social Security is an insurance program I was compelled to participate in and into which I have paid the maximum amount for 30 years.
Rightly or wrongly I have the potential to benefit from Obamacare because in 2014 I will be able to purchase the health insurance I’ve been trying to buy but the market will not provide. I might add this is a program to which I am opposed as I believe there are market based health care reforms which should be enacted (such as allowing portability and a national insurance market) and which would lower health care costs while providing options not available today for people to protect themselves from the future risk of being in the pre existing condition insurance dilemma.
So here is my problem. If I claim to be a conservative would you have me stand on principle, refuse to buy health insurance under Obamacare, and then be compelled by the IRS to pay a fine for not having insurance under the law? Or should I buy the health insurance the government will require companies to provide people with pre existing conditions, knowing that this will mean my fellow citizens are being forced by government to “subsidize” my medical care expenses?
If I stand on principle, and continue to pay my own way, my costs go up because the Obamacare law requires me to pay a substantial fine for not being insured. However if I buy insurance available under the law to those with preexisting conditions, my fellow conservatives will consider me to be a chiseler because they are being compelled to subsidize the cost of my medical care. Under the second choice my health care costs will go down substantially so it is certainly in my economic interest to obey the law. Recognize that due to the fine imposed by the government and enforced by the IRS, for not having health insurance, I will no longer have the option of simply continuing to pay my own way and be left alone.