Repeal of individual mandate

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by jramos716, Dec 4, 2017.

  1. jramos716
    Offline

    jramos716 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    The Affordable Care Act includes a provision that requires Americans to have health insurance, known as the individual mandate, otherwise pay a penalty collected by the IRS. An option for reducing the budget deficit is to repeal this mandate and no longer require Americans to purchase insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates a total savings of $416 billion between 2018 and 2026 if the individual mandate is repealed (Congressional Budget Office, n.d.). Supporters of this repeal argue that health coverage is a personal decision, and the federal government should not decide whether people must have insurance or not. This mandate reduces the financial well-being of individuals and families by forcing them to either purchase coverage or pay a penalty. In 2015, 6.7 million Americans paid the tax penalty instead of purchasing health coverage with a majority of them being in the low to middle income group of $25,000-$50,000 (Lai & Parlapiano, 2017). And lastly, young and healthy people who can afford coverage but would normally not purchase it are cross-subsidizing for the older, less healthy people who use many more services (Congressional Budget Office, n.d.). And unfortunately, having health coverage does not guarantee access. Some networks have limited access to providers and specialists due to lack of a contract. This forces enrollees to choose one of the providers in network, even if they are not as qualified as another physician (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2017).

    By 2026, 28 million Americans will be uninsured. If this mandate were to be repealed, an additional 15 million people will not have health coverage (Congressional Budget Office, n.d.). Healthy individuals who only purchase insurance due to the penalty will stop. This will increase the ratio of unhealthy beneficiaries to healthy beneficiaries and cause insurance premiums to rise to offset costs. Another anticipated consequence includes shifted costs onto hospitals. Once the mandate is repealed, people who cannot afford insurance will stop purchasing it. Yet they may still get sick or have a medical emergency and show up at a hospital for medical care without being able to pay for it. This will certainly affect hospitals with the anticipated increase in uninsured admitted patients. These costs will be left with the hospital to recover through cost shifting and raising costs for private insured patients. It is estimated that each uninsured person costs hospitals $900 per year (Garthwaite, Gross & Notowidigdo, 2015).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    161,898
    Thanks Received:
    14,535
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +47,764
    Will not happen until 2019.
     
  3. deanrd
    Offline

    deanrd Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    13,160
    Thanks Received:
    1,746
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,183
    Millions losing healthcare?

    The cost going up 10% for the Middle Class.

    OK, now we know the GOP's "good news". What's the 'bad news'?
     
  4. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,702
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,021
    Dear jramos716 Thanks for posting:

    What we should focus on to lower costs of medical care
    is reducing waste of resources on crime and disease that can be prevented instead.

    Reducing insurance costs by 'forcing people to buy it' is just manipulating the pricing.

    That isn't addressing either the means of providing medical care in more cost effective ways
    or the reduction of expensive demands and waste by prevention to cut costs on that side.

    The process should be approached the other way:
    Seek more efficient and economical means of providing medical care,
    such as investing in medical education, training and service programs to
    make health care more accessible and affordable to the public;
    and reduce the causes and costs of crime, disease and social ills
    that otherwise cost taxpayers money that could be spent on health care instead.

    If taxpaying citizens are rewarded with tax breaks and deductions for investing in
    developing more localized health care and social services, this gives INCENTIVE for
    communities to work within their districts and counties to lower their crime rates (by investing
    in preventative therapy and medical treatment of mental illness, criminal disorders,
    abuse and addiction). This way, we can redirect resources toward providing health care
    (and also elderly care and even day care) with the money saved.

    That addresses the costs and reforms directly at the source and solutions.
    NOT mandating and manipulating the pricing without changing how
    services are provided or reducing costs and waste so that existing resources
    and taxes can cover public demand.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  5. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    24,940
    Thanks Received:
    2,376
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,767
    The overriding purpose of ACA, which both parties support, is to funnel money to the insurance industry.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,702
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,021
    deanrd after this proposed repeal finally goes through,
    how about taxpayers suing the Democrats for the costs charged to the public
    and demanding that reimbursement to be invested in setting up
    sustainable public health programs, both funded and opted into voluntarily?
     
  7. MadChemist
    Offline

    MadChemist Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    534
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +127
    What say we allow anyone to practice medicine who can pass a final exam.

    I am totally serious.
     
  8. MadChemist
    Offline

    MadChemist Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    534
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +127
    Pour money into the insurance industry is more like it.
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,702
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,021
    Dear MadChemist
    For basics in preventative health and medicine, including first aid and emergency response, YES, everyone should be trained and knowledgeable enough to save their own health and life from detrimental or dangerous behaviors or lack of practical knowledge.

    Does it take medical professionals to research and prove to people that smoking pot causes lung damage similar to smoking cigarettes or inhaling any kind of unnatural substances or smoke into the lungs? Does it take a medical license to know that driving drunk is dangerous, and impaired coordination causes accidents that WILL require emergency room teams led by licensed professionals to save lives? No, this should be basic knowledge, which would PREVENT the need for the higher end procedures.

    Otherwise, we create our own mental and physical ills and end up "depending" on either pharmaceuticals, drugs or more expensive surgeries and treatments that DO require prescriptions and licensed medical practictioners.

    On some level you aren't too far from the truth: in order to afford universal health care, yes, the general population will have to take on greater responsibility. We can do a lot more on the preventative side by respecting basic rules of health and natural laws on what is and what isn't good for our bodies and immune systems. The more we handle on our own using common sense and basic knowledge, the less the dependence on and cost of more advanced procedures. Our resources wouldn't be stretched so thin as to be unequally accessible. The wiser we are with our natural resources, including the health of our minds and bodies that are designed to heal themselves if we don't abuse them, then we can set up more sustainable and accessible programs to serve the broader populations.

    Public education is the key!
     

Share This Page