How do you pay for insurance without a job?

I've looked in a few states and checked for healthcare for a 28 year old with one member in the household who has no income.

If you make under $12,000 you do not qualify for a subsidy.

If you make over $12,000 you DO qualify for a subsidy, however it's simply a tax credit. You still have to pay the $169($6,350 Deductible) or $189($5,500 Deductible) for the cheapest plans upfront every month until you get your taxes back and then you'll get the money back.

This helps NOONE who doesn't have a job (you know the people who actually need help getting healthcare). And it's only marginally helpful to FORCE someone who is making $12,000 a year to spend $200 a month of that money on healthcare they may or may not use. While it's great they'll get it back at the end of the year, it sure as hell doesn't help them make ends meat this month. In fact it puts them in an even worse position.

WTF is going on here.

How the (*)(*)(*)(*) is someone who doesn't have a job supposed to buy health insurance? And this Obamacare atrocity is supposed to help those millions of people who didn't have jobs and don't qualify for the subsidy?

 

They can get on welfare/medicaid. That is the point, more dependents = more power.

 

No they can't. For instance, in NC one of the states I looked, you do not qualify to get on Medicaid unless you are in one of these categories. Low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

If you do not fit one of those qualifications you can't get Medicaid.

So again, how the (*)(*)(*)(*) does someone without a job pay for insurance that is MANDATED for them to get or they'll get fined $2,000 just for being alive.

 

I did not know about those restrictions. I learned something today.

Guess getting knocked up with a kid you cant afford is the best way to take care of the bills and avoid the fines. Fines are capped as a % of income though so it wouldnt be much if anything I think. Or is that for just a few years...

 

Except in the states with idiot governors that declined to expand Medicaid....

I know three people who are working but can't afford the plans on the exchanges. In other states, they would have been eligible for Medicaid, but the braindead moron in Wisconsin's governor's mansion declined the expansion, even though it wouldn't have cost the state a freaking dime.

 

So it's the governor's fault because they were being fiscally responsible and not expanding another welfare program when their states were already having monetary problems. But it's NOT Obama's and the democrats fault for passing a plan that they KNEW people under $12,000 a year wouldn't be able to get healthcare in any form in multiple states AND they would be fined AT LEAST $2,000 a year and more going into the future?

 

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it....

what is the RIGHTwing solution to people who are unemployed and have no health insurance?


They tap their vast "health savings account" and use the $500 in it to cover their premiums until they find a job???

 

We tell them exactly what they should expect. Which is what they don't get from you. You folks lie to them and tell them they're going to get healthcare. We tell them since they're in the position they're in, they're going to have to go to free clinics and rely upon the charitable contributions of others.

But we don't screw up the healthcare system for the VAST majority so that we can LIE and tell the poor people that they're going to get healthcare when in reality they're just as far up (*)(*)(*)(*) creek without a paddle as they were before except now they're going to be FINED for it.

 

Read this post very carefully.

If you are going to start a thread complaining about people who can't afford healthcare not being able to afford it, don't then turn around and defend the people that prevented them from getting the healthcare they would have been able to.

People making under $12,000 a year cannot afford healthcare anyway. If you are making less than that per year, you are under the poverty line. Do you choose food, or health insurance? A car to get to a job to get the $12K a year, or health insurance?

When the uninsured get sick, they go to the emergency departments of public hospitals. Thus, they take resources and beds from those who may be acutely ill, when the poor person is there for a chronic condition. Emergency room care costs much more than a visit to a general practitioner, but general practitioners may not take patients without insurance, whereas emergency departments in many states, by law, must provide care without respect of the person's ability to pay. If that hospital happens to be a teaching hospital owned and operated by a state university, guess who pays for the person's care in the end? You got it, the taxpayer. The taxpayer will end up paying more for the care of the uninsured individual than they would have for an insured individual based on the simple and well-known fact within the healthcare industry that the uninsured are charged higher rates than those with private insurance and much higher than those on government insurance programs.

The ACA isn't ideal, but, like I've pointed out before, it's got beautiful potential. Every health insurance company on the exchanges is, in effect, doing business with the government. When you do business with the Federal Government of the United States, the Federal Government can compel you to turn over your accounting books. If the Federal Government finds any improprieties in the books of the insurance companies, they can file charges of corruption and move to seize the company as assets of the crime. They can then merge all of the companies so seized, and it'd more than likely that every insurance company on the exchanges is doing something not kosher. Voila, nationalized healthcare.

Of course, I would have had the balls to say that everyone gets universal healthcare right off the bat without the exchange bullcrap, but Obama wanted a second term. I would be happy having my political career wrecked as long as every American gets universal healthcare. I know that fifty years down the road, the president that starts universal healthcare will be lauded as one of the greats.

 

How is that going to change when they don't receive a subsidy because they don't have a job? They're STILL going to the emergency rooms and they're STILL sucking up the taxpayer money because they STILL can't afford healthcare and NOW you've screwed it up for EVERYBODY else under the FALSE pretense that you're providing healthcare to those who didn't have it before.

LoL So you're acknowledging that the purpose behind the exchanges is for a complete government takeover of the insurance and healthcare system.

You're also acknowledging that the president and all of his cronies LIED about the intent and the purpose as well as the ability of the program that they've enacted to provide what they claim.

You COMPLETELY ignore every statistic which shows this is an absolutely horrible, detrimental, monetary rape on the economy while it decreases the quality of healthcare for the rest of the populace.

On top of that you STILL argue that the ACA is BETTER than what we had before because they WANTED to provide healthcare for everyone even though they still don't do so. So it's BETTER that we're paying MILLIONS of dollars more for decreased quality healthcare, we're losing jobs, dropping hours, losing healthcare coverage for a system that is NOT providing the very thing you folks claim it's intended to provide; healthcare to those people who couldn't afford healthcare before.

And then when those poor people who you claim to be helping STILL can't afford healthcare and they STILL go to the emergency room and STILL run up the cost for EVERYBODY else.... on top of being in the SAME exact position they were in before.... they're going to be FINED because they can't afford the healthcare that they're MANDATED to purchase.

Wow.... just.... wow.

 

The Medicaid expansion was specifically designed to encompass people above the poverty line, up to 133%, which was the point at which the subsidies kicked in. Medicaid is only available for people who are on disability in the states who have not expanded Medicaid.

A person on Medicaid would be eligible to go to a GP, where the costs are lower than they would be for an emergency-room visit, and the quality of care is higher. It's also probably likely that the chances of acquiring a sickness such as MRSA is lower in a GP's office than in an emergency room.

No, I'm not acknowledging that a takeover was the purpose of the legislation. I am saying that, for the betterment of the country's prospects as a whole, it would be the best option. I believe the purpose of the legislation was to increase the wealth of the health insurance industry. My idea would eliminate the entire health insurance industry.

Again, no I am not. I do not know what the President or those in his administration had in mind when the law was proposed. I do not profess to be a mind reader.

I am not ignoring the statistics that the expansion of a government program costs money. I know any expansion of a government program will cost money. However, I am ignoring your partisan and retarded claim that it was a rape of the economy. If you want to see economic rape, look at the 1% the Tea Party is funded by and those on Wall Street.

We are a lot better off under the ACA than we were before the law. Prior to the passage of the law, an insurance company could cover as little as it wanted, and pass on the costs to the policyholder so much that in many cases, having an insurance policy was useless. Insurance companies could also drop your coverage once you got sick. Imagine your kid gets diagnosed with a cancer that, if treated, is curable, and if not treated, is deadly. The day after you get the diagnosis, your insurance company calls you and says they're dropping your policy, before the ACA they could do just that. Under the law, there are caps on how much a person pays out of pocket, which most times have been proven to cost less than what would have been available to them under the old system.

The vast majority of the poor people that are going to be getting fined are going to be in the states that denied or limited the Medicaid expansion. I have no doubt that's exactly what the first year's fine data will show, just in time for it to be rammed up the ass of the GOP presidential candidate who will probably still be railing against the idea of the ACA.

Wow.... just.... wow.....you need to stop drinking so much Kool-Aid, or if you are, at least have the decency to drink the stuff Jim Jones mixed....

 

That doesn't help a damn bit for someone who's not eligible for Medicaid.

Also, you continue to talk about how the states didn't expand Medicaid. Do you understand why? Because the Federal Government is only going to pay for the new Medicaid patients for up to three years. After three years, the state is WHOLLY responsible for providing Medicaid for that individual. Many of these states who didn't expand Medicaid could not AFFORD to expand Medicaid.

What good does it to do expand Medicaid for three years if in 5-10 years your state's going to be bankrupt because it can't afford to pay for the Medicaid? And what do you think is going to happen when those doctors stop receiving payments or start receiving reduced payments for Medicaid patients? They're going to stop treating them for anything more than an emergency. That is already occurring.

To attempt to place blame on the State's because of a MANDATE including a FINE imposed by the Federal government would be laughable if it wasn't so incredibly pathetic and painful to society.

Oh that's just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing genius. Let's take away all competition and incentive to improve. Let's take MORE money away from the American people who are in one of the worst economies since the great depression.

BTW, why don't you provide me ONE example of any government takeover in which they've reduced costs, increased efficiency and increased quality?

In fact, why don't you provide me ONE example of ANY government takeover in which they did NOT increase costs, decrease efficiency and decrease quality?

Really? The president and his cronies didn't know that the states would have the capability to not expand Medicaid and that if they did not expand Medicaid that EVERY individual who didn't make ~$12,000 or more would not qualify for ANY subsidy whatsoever and that they'd be in an even WORSE position than they were in before because now they're going to be FINED for it?

Why don't you explain that one to me. Either the president and the democrats did know and they're liars. Or they didn't know and they're utterly incompetent. Which one is it?

Which 1% is that? The Koch brothers? You mean the ones who are 59th on the list of political donations?

In a piece by Mark Tapscott we find that six of the top ten donors to political causes are left-wing unions.

Those unions are AFSCME, the NEA, IBEW, UAW, the Carpenters & Joiners, and the SEIU.

And who is the biggest political donor? The extremist, left-wing group ActBlue. In fact, ActBlue tops the list after being around for only ten years, a full 15 years fewer than the Koch brothers have been involved in and donating to politics. Yet ActBlue has topped the Kochs by tens of millions in that short period of time!

You want to try again?

Are you just lying or are you ignorant of the facts? First of all, there were out of pocket "limits" on essentially every plan before Obamacare. Second of all, an insurer doesn't "cover as little as it wants". Unlike the government the insurer can't simply compel you to purchase his healthcare. He provides different plans that have differing costs and differing options and YOU choose which plan you want. If you chose a plan that didn't cover anything then you're at fault, not the insurance company. When will you liberals learn ANY understanding of personal accountability and responsibility? It's not always somebody else's fault. In fact, most of the time, it's you're fault... especially if you're a welfare loving liberal.

Third, It was illegal - at least in my state and I'll be happy to check others- for a health insurance carrier to drop you for any reason other than non-payment of your premium or fraud. So NO you can't get dropped for using your health insurance. Get real people, buy a policy from a respected company and ask questions. Why would you buy major medical insurance if it will drop you when you get sick? That is what you are paying for.

What they CAN do is increase your rates the next time they come up for renewal. That's completely different but for someone who is costing a lot to the insurer you would expect that.

And if you think the rates for Obamacare aren't going to rise you're one of the most naïve people I've ever met.

Oh and BTW, the deductibles for the insurance policies that poor people will be able to afford are absolutely absurd. $6,250 and $5,500 a year for a deductible? And you claim that's better? You're completely out of touch.

Oh so I suppose Obama and his cronies had no idea that was going to happen did they?

I'm sure those poor people can't wait to get in the voting booths after they get hit with that fine.

Don't worry. Your government is going to be giving out plenty of Jim Jones mixed koolaid in the form of healthcare rationing.

Remember what Obama said?

Member of the audience. Jane Sturm: “My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, ‘I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it.’ She said, ‘Go for it.’ But the specialist said, ‘No, she’s too old.’ But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ‘spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” Do you realize how cold and heartless that answer is? This woman is asking about her mother. And everywhere she went, except one doctor, refused to put in the pacemaker. “Nah, she’s too old; she’s going to die anyway.”

So they found a specialist: “Maybe this woman really loves living. I’ll put it in.” She’s lived five years with the pacemaker, and still Obama: “Maybe you’re better off to tell your mother to take a pill, take a painkiller.” See, we have to have rules. “We have to have rules. Your mother should have died five years ago, lady. She would have been better off taking that painkiller.” Who says we have to have his rules? The President of the United States is not a king. He’s not an autocrat. He’s not a ruler. He doesn’t get to set the rules. Obama has taken it upon himself to do so. This woman found a way to get her mother a pacemaker. With Obamacare, you just heard the answer: It wouldn’t have happened.

 

Which is why people were pissed there was no public option which nixed insurance companies completely out of the equation. They're a burden. Btw, there are cheaper deductibles out there depending on your state. Your figures are actually quite high for some places in comparison to the premium.

 

Absolutely no problem.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-my-state-is-not-expanding-medicaid/

Under the If Your State is Not Expanding Medicaid title

•If your income is more than 100% of the federal poverty level -- $11,490 a year as a single person or about $23,550 for a family of 4 -- you will be able to buy a private health insurance plan in the Marketplace and may get lower costs based on your household size and income.
•If you make less than about $11,490 a year as a single person or about $23,550 for a family of 4, you may not qualify for lower costs for private insurance based on your income. However, you may be eligible for Medicaid, even without the expansion, based on your state’s existing rules.


You can also go to healthcare.gov and just put in the information. It's really quick. Takes less than 2 minutes to click through the "See plans before I apply" thing.

Put in an estimated 2014 income of anything under $11,490 and it will tell you that you won't qualify for a subsidy. Anything over that and it says you do qualify.

ETA: I said $12,000 because once I put in $0 as the estimated 2014 income and it said I didn't qualify for a subsidy, I then started putting in incomes going up by intervals of $1,000 until I got to the point where it said I did qualify. Which was at $12,000.

 

If you have no job, that means you have no income right? Therefore you'd qualify for Medicade. They can't fine you becuase if you have no money, so there is nothing to take from you.

 

Already addressed the first part about Medicaid.

No they can't. For instance, in NC one of the states I looked, you do not qualify to get on Medicaid unless you are in one of these categories. Low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

If you do not fit one of those qualifications you can't get Medicaid.

So again, how the (*)(*)(*)(*) does someone without a job pay for insurance that is MANDATED for them to get or they'll get fined $2,000 just for being alive.

To address the fact that they can't fine you if you don't have an income. That's right. They can't fine you THIS year. But once you DO get a job, they'll have every capability of appropriating money off of your check to pay for the fines they imposed on you for not having healthcare. Something private companies could never do.

 

You think they won't fine you anyway? When has inability to pay ever meant that the government won't fine you? All that means is that either you will go to jail, or they will wait until you do have money, then take it from you so you will remain impoverished even longer.

 

Not in the states that haven't adopted the expanded Medicaid provisions of the ACA. In many of those states, single males are not eligible for Medicaid at all (and a women with a dependent child cannot make more than $3,500 and qualify).

- - - Updated - - -

If the cost of insurance is more than 8.5% of your income, you are not subject to the fine.

 

Put you in jail? It's cheaper to let you go as opposed to incarcerating someone over $2000. It's highly unlikely that they will jail over several hundred thousand people. The costs would be astromonical.

 

They might do it just out of spite, and as a warning to others. But what about the rest (the majority) of my post, which spoke about just delaying the fine collection until you get some money? That is probably what they'll do.

 

They might very well do that. It will remain to be seen I guess.

 

When the law was written the law required the states to participate in the expanded Medicaid coverage. The SCOTUS knocked down that provision of the law, the only major provision knocked down. So they did not lie, nor was it incompetence. The law provided for those people below the poverty line, the SCOTUS said that the way they did violated the Constitution by forcing the states to participate, but upheld the rest of the law. Those states that have chosen to participate don't have the problem, those states that have chosen not to participate have made the decision to deny access to health care to those below the poverty line who don't qualify for those states Medicaid Program. This will mostly be adults without dependent children below the age of 65.

 

Jail. 3 squares, a bed, and healthcare. Doesn't seem cheaper to send one to jail who can't afford premiums.

 

And yet they continued to push it and neglected to educate the populace on this inconvenient fact.

And check this out folks... it's already starting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...is-bloated-medicaid-system/?intcmp=latestnews

We told you all along that we expected about 509,000 people to enroll in Medicaid post-ACA," Illinois Health Care and Family Services Director Julie Hamos told lawmakers Thursday. "We now see that 430,000 could enroll by the end of this calendar year."

Illinois has added 315,000 people to Medicaid since Jan. 1


That's 315,000 in TWO MONTHS. The states who DID expand Medicaid will either be bankrupt or BEGGING the federal government (the taxpayers) for a bailout because they can't afford to pay the bill for those Medicaid patients after 3 years (conveniently after the 2016 elections).

This is going to CRIPPLE our economy. Don't say we didn't tell you folks.

ETA: Oh and don't forget that once the states start running out of funding for their Medicaid patients because they've added too many, they're going to start reducing the amount they pay the doctors, nurses, ER's, hospitals, etc etc for their services because they need to "do the right thing" and take one for the team. But that's not what will happen is it? The doctors are going to tell you "thanks but no thanks" if you come into their office with Medicaid.

- - - Updated - - -

When did liberals and democrats in the government ever concern themselves with rising costs or limiting those rising costs? And why should they? If costs rise, they just push some class warfare, redistribution of wealth, evil rich people rhetoric and they steal more money from the American people.