I saw this question on another message board and I wanted to ask it here. I never thought of this but it makes sense. I think I read that the "fine' for not carrying insurance is like 2-2.5%. That would be A LOT cheaper than buying insurance.

The most likely version of Obama care requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "preexisting condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.

So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.

How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?

A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.

Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.

How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?

2-2.5% of what?

I Wear Pants wrote: 2-2.5% of what?

Your income.

And the whole point of any plan they try to cram through is to ultimate put an end to any private health care. When insurance companies start failing, that will be the next crisis and the solution will be to force through a full blown government run option that will take in all of the customers until every last private company falls.

Cleveland Buck wrote: And the whole point of any plan they try to cram through is to ultimate put an end to any private health care. When insurance companies start failing, that will be the next crisis and the solution will be to force through a full blown government run option that will take in all of the customers until every last private company falls.

I agree. If they really wanted to force people to buy insurance "for the good of all Americans" they'd make the fine something that would be more than insurance premiums. I mean, let's take a single guy, not even with any family, making $40,000 a year. If he didn't want to buy insurance, the fine would only be 800-1000 dollars. There is no way any single guy is going to find half way decent insurance for just $1000 a year. This bill will ultimately drive out the insurance companies, then the government will swoop in. Too bad about all those jobs lost when the insurance companies fold, though.

Cleveland Buck wrote: And the whole point of any plan they try to cram through is to ultimate put an end to any private health care. When insurance companies start failing, that will be the next crisis and the solution will be to force through a full blown government run option that will take in all of the customers until every last private company falls.

It will be a one page bill, and it will read Medicare for all. That is the liberal dream, and has been for a while now.

IggyPride00 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: And the whole point of any plan they try to cram through is to ultimate put an end to any private health care. When insurance companies start failing, that will be the next crisis and the solution will be to force through a full blown government run option that will take in all of the customers until every last private company falls.

It will be a one page bill, and it will read Medicare for all. That is the liberal dream, and has been for a while now.

It's too bad Medicare rejects more patient's claims than all the other insurers. Maybe the government should pass a bill for that.

tk421 wrote:It's too bad Medicare rejects more patient's claims than all the other insurers. Maybe the government should pass a bill for that.

When ObamaKare passes this will only get worse. It's already starting: Walgreens rejects new Medicare patients

November can't get here quickly enough.

I'm glad people are starting to relies this. This is what Obama has WANTED from the START!!

We tried to tell people this the last 2 years!

The slippery slope starts if this thing passes. It's not just healthcare that will be regulated, but anything that could cause higher costs in healthcare. Examples: people's diets, smoking, car accidents (seat belts), alcohol consumption....the list goes on and on. It could be 20 yrs down the road, but if we get eventually transformed into a single-payer, then that single payer will have a say in ANYTHING that effects costs. Anyone with a brain realizes that this will effect our choices/liberties....that's the battle. This healthcare reform bill is a FUNDAMENTAL change in American society as we know it. Government officials think that they know what's better for the people than the people living thier own lives/making their own choices. That's been the Liberal agenda for close to a century now, and they've almost achieved it.

The original poster is correct about the fines being less than the premiums.

Premiums are likely to go up quite dramatically if this bill passes -- because insurers will be forced to take on people with all types of health conditions and will have to raise premiums to compensate.

I've seen some estimates that premiums will rise several HUNDRED percent.

Why this bunch of morons doesn't simply open up insurance sales across all state lines and let the market place resolve this, is beyond me. Competition will have to drive the costs down, even for those who have pre-existing conditions.

Writerbuckeye wrote: The original poster is correct about the fines being less than the premiums.

Premiums are likely to go up quite dramatically if this bill passes -- because insurers will be forced to take on people with all types of health conditions and will have to raise premiums to compensate.

I've seen some estimates that premiums will rise several HUNDRED percent.

Why this bunch of morons doesn't simply open up insurance sales across all state lines and let the market place resolve this, is beyond me. Competition will have to drive the costs down, even for those who have pre-existing conditions.

I agree...I don't really get it, it seems like this would be a simple fix. Yet, why wasn't this done before? The state lines thing seems like it would be easy...just don't get it.

Writerbuckeye wrote:
Why this bunch of morons doesn't simply open up insurance sales across all state lines and let the market place resolve this, is beyond me. Competition will have to drive the costs down, even for those who have pre-existing conditions.

That's because "Health Care" was never about "health" or "care", or about making insurance more affordable. It's always been about government being in control, offering more handouts, and creating a larger voting base of people dependent on the govt.

jhay78 wrote: That's because "Health Care" was never about "health" or "care", or about making insurance more affordable. It's always been about government being in control, offering more handouts, and creating a larger voting base of people dependent on the govt.

This is pretty much the appropriate and obvious answer.

Writerbuckeye wrote:Why this bunch of morons doesn't simply open up insurance sales across all state lines and let the market place resolve this, is beyond me. Competition will have to drive the costs down, even for those who have pre-existing conditions.

Sales across state lines, true tort reform, etc. are precisely the things that will drive prices down but the Dems are so fixated on insuring that Big Government controls 1/6 of the economy they have refused to give these ideas serious consideration.

Dem leaders want us to swallow that this health care bill will only cost taxpayers $940 billion and that it will actually reduce the budget deficit. LMAO

Anyone who buys off on that line of BULLSHIT is an idiot.

November can't get her quickly enough.

Writerbuckeye wrote: The original poster is correct about the fines being less than the premiums.

Premiums are likely to go up quite dramatically if this bill passes -- because insurers will be forced to take on people with all types of health conditions and will have to raise premiums to compensate.

I've seen some estimates that premiums will rise several HUNDRED percent.

Why this bunch of morons doesn't simply open up insurance sales across all state lines and let the market place resolve this, is beyond me. Competition will have to drive the costs down, even for those who have pre-existing conditions.

This, some tort reform and a pinch of oversight would have been a far better solution.

There's two problems with the health care situation. The first is that it was left to get so messed up in the first place, something should have been done earlier. The second is that once we started to do something about it (now) we're doing it with the grace of a grizzly bear mauling a kindergarten bus.

Don't forget about the businesses that will opt to pay a fine rather than provide coverage for their employees as the fine will be much less than having to carry such coverage. If you watch and listen to the right people they have been saying all along, this is not about getting people health care, this bill is about gaining more and more power.

Sec. 1002. Individual responsibility. Modifies the assessment that individuals who choose to remain uninsured pay in three ways: (a) exempts the income below the filing threshold, (b) lowers the flat payment from $495 to $325 in 2015 and from $750 to $695 in 2016 and (c) raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years to make the assessment more progressive.

Sec. 1003. Employer responsibility. Improves the transition to the employer responsibility policy for employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent workers (FTE) by subtracting the first 30 full time employees from the payment calculation (e.g., a firm with 51 workers that does not offer coverage will pay an amount equal to 51 minus 30, or 21 times the applicable per employee payment amount). The provision also changes the applicable payment amount for firms with more than 50 FTEs that do not offer coverage to $2,000 per full-time employee. It also eliminates the assessment for workers in a waiting period, while maintaining the 90-day limit on the length of any waiting period beginning in 2014.

http://www.rules.house.gov/111_hr4872_secbysec.html

This is also tucked into the health bill:
Section 2104. Investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. This section amends section 371(b) of the Higher Education Act by extending funding for programs under this section created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 for programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions through 2019, including programs that help low-income students attain degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering or mathematics by the following annual amounts: $100 million to Hispanic Serving Institutions, $85 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Predominantly Black Institutions, $30 million to Tribal Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Alaska, Hawaiian Native Institutions, $5 million to Asian American and Pacific Islander Institutions, and $5 million to Native American non-tribal serving institutions.

http://www.rules.house.gov/111_hr4872_secbysec.html

As well as the Govt will now decide who gets student loan money as they will be taking over the student loan program.

Too bad we don't have news companies that will actually report these facts to the American public. Nothing like ignorant sheep.

The government has been in the student loan business for a long time already, along with grants and other handouts. Why do you think college tuition is so high?

tk421 wrote: Too bad we don't have news companies that will actually report these facts to the American public. Nothing like ignorant sheep.

Exactly- if they did, we wouldn't need to depend on talk radio, the internet, and Fox News to pick up the slack.

tk421 wrote: I saw this question on another message board and I wanted to ask it here. I never thought of this but it makes sense. I think I read that the "fine' for not carrying insurance is like 2-2.5%. That would be A LOT cheaper than buying insurance.

The most likely version of Obama care requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "preexisting condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.

So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.

How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?

A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.

Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.

How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?

Hopefully this is what happens and the leeches (insurance companies) can stop taking money for nothing but being a middle man passing money from me to my doctor.

Hopefully insurance companies will be forced out of medicine and it is between the people and the doctor or hospital.

BCSbunk wrote:

tk421 wrote: I saw this question on another message board and I wanted to ask it here. I never thought of this but it makes sense. I think I read that the "fine' for not carrying insurance is like 2-2.5%. That would be A LOT cheaper than buying insurance.

The most likely version of Obama care requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "preexisting condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.

So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.

How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?

A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.

Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.

How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?

Hopefully this is what happens and the leeches (insurance companies) can stop taking money for nothing but being a middle man passing money from me to my doctor.

Hopefully insurance companies will be forced out of medicine and it is between the people and the doctor or hospital.

Either you are completely oblvivious to what is going on, or just plain don't understand it. The GOVERNMENT will become the new insurance company - they will stand between you and your doctor, and they will bankrupt the system in the process. If you want a system with no insurance at all, then you better be either a) extremely independently wealthy and can afford that heart attack surgery or cancer treatment or b) a very healthy person that bunkers in your house and never leaves - taking no risk for fear of having to come out of pocket for extreme costs.
Personally, I'd rather be able to pick my insurance company, based on competition throughout the country, to cover me in case I need it; I'll gladly pay the premiums.

Exactly pinstriper. The misconception many people have about Obamacare is they believe it is healthcare reform. It is not healthcare reform, this is health insurance reform. Meaning, the government is trying to overtake and cut into the he business of insuring people from private insurer's. BCSbunk is totally wrong in believing it is only the private insurer's who are denying insurance claims. The government already does this. In fact, the government (meaning Medicare and Medicaid, are the biggest deniers of insurance claims). The fallacy that the doctors and the patient's are going to be cutting out the middle man is completely wrong. In fact, Obamacare is going to make it much worse. At least with private insurance, there are appeal processes, a person could file suit against their insurer, and/or they could select another insurance plan if available. Under Obamacare, there is no other option. Good luck trying to sue Uncle Sam.

I have said before and still believe the logical solution to reducing health care costs is to open up the insurance markets across state lines. Flood the market. The more insurance options available (meaning multiple carriers), the costs of insurance will plummet and the benefits/service/coverage will increase. How do I know this? It is this way in every other line of business. In order to remain competitive with their peers, companies will reduce their prices in order to snag new business. At the same time, they will offer the carrot that their competitors to give them reason to switch to their service. Take auto insurance--- years ago the majority of people had Allstate and State Farm. The insurance offices had banker hours. Now that the market is flooded with more compeititon, the carriers are doing weekends, late shifts, and have 24/7 call centers. Why? So they can tell their customers they are always available and give better service than their peers. When their was no competition, there was no need for them to do so. The people weren't going elsewhere and they had to have it.

And with the majority of the polls saying Americans DON'T want this, our so called representatives are ignoring them. This just amazes me that the voice of "WE The People" means nothing. If I elect you to represent me then I would expect and demand that you do just that. Otherwise I can only assume that you are in it for you're own personal gain.

I heard on the radio where one rep said that I might not get re-elected but I'm going to do what's right. ?????????????? What's right???????????. Representing the people and ignoring the majority of what they want is right??????????

And why the rush? If it's so great, then it will pass in time. Why the threat of "back door" passage?

Amazing...and unfortunate for our country.