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:
    1
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    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on Taxation (JCT) estimates a total savings of $416 billion between 2018 and 2026 if the individual mandate is repealed (Congressional Budget Office, n.d.).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 If this mandate were to be repealed, an additional 15 million people will not have health coverage (Congressional Budget Office, n.d.).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 Once the mandate is repealed, people who cannot afford insurance will stop purchasing it.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:
    156,549
    Thanks Received:
    14,084
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +44,387
    Will not happen until 2019.
     
  3. deanrd
    Online

    deanrd Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    6,703
    Thanks Received:
    936
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,372
    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:
    18,292
    Thanks Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,092
    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
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,178
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,744
    The overriding purpose of ACA, which both parties support, is to funnel money to the insurance industry.
     
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,292
    Thanks Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,092
    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?
     

Share This Page