Should There Be An "Opt-Out" Clause With The New ACA To Make Right Winger's Happy?

[Intense]

Compromised with who? The insurance industry? Or do you just mean the compromised their integrity? That much seems obvious.

Why don't you just answer for me?

Ok.. I can only guess - but here's what I think happened. Most of them did really want single payer, or at least a public option. I mean, they're Democrats - they gotta love government running things. But they either weren't confident the public would be behind them, or were too afraid to spurn their corporate benefactors.

I think that they intend to screw things up so badly that Single Payer will eventually look good in comparison.

 

[Black_Label]

Ever since the affordable care act was passed, the right wingers have been going into a complete rampage over having to actually grow up and get health insurance, instead of just freeloading off the rest of the hard working americans.

Now to shut them up and for them to keep their "freedom", should there be an opt-out clause? By signing an opt out wavier, this would mean an up front payment for all medical services. If they require expensive treatment, this will all be need to be paid up front (cash, no credit or loans would be applicable) and the same with a 911 call or emergency.

They would have to "carry their papers" such as a bank statement with a debit card or credit card (no checks) to cover the likely $600 ambulance ride, plus $1,000 to walk in the door of an ER. From there the care would be only administered by how much funds they have available. Run out, then you get a wheel chair ride to the curb, no matter how sick. Sound fair?

I wish the cons in my area could opt out of the educational system. Typical self-sufficent conservative demographic in suburban Utah: 5 kids, single (relatvely low) income source, deductions for every kid plus tithing. Contribute about $5 per year to the system while costing many thousands.

It's like that nationwide with the GOP leeches. Sucking the system dry then throwing a pissy fit when they actually have to grow up like with the ACA.

 

[dblack]

Why don't you just answer for me?

Ok.. I can only guess - but here's what I think happened. Most of them did really want single payer, or at least a public option. I mean, they're Democrats - they gotta love government running things. But they either weren't confident the public would be behind them, or were too afraid to spurn their corporate benefactors.

I think that they intend to screw things up so badly that Single Payer will eventually look good in comparison.

I've heard that proposed before, from both supporters and detractors of the law. But it seems a bit cynical, and frankly more cunning than I'd give them credit for. I think it just a lame mix of cowardice and corruption.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ok.. I can only guess - but here's what I think happened. Most of them did really want single payer, or at least a public option. I mean, they're Democrats - they gotta love government running things. But they either weren't confident the public would be behind them, or were too afraid to spurn their corporate benefactors.

I think that they intend to screw things up so badly that Single Payer will eventually look good in comparison.

I've heard that proposed before, from both supporters and detractors of the law. But it seems a bit cynical, and frankly more cunning than I'd give them credit for. I think it just a lame mix of cowardice and corruption.

I don't know, but we know they're capable of ruthless, as evidenced by the F&F scandal.

 

[oldernwiser]

The whole point of the individual mandate is to stop the freeloaders that use ER's for walk in clinics, raking up massive bills, then stiffing those that actually have insurance to pay for them with higher premiums.

Wrong. The purpose is to offset the cost of forcing insurance companies to carry people with pre-existing conditions, idiot.

That's why the issue of severability was raised with the mandate. Everyone but you knows that without the mandate the ACA collapses.

Without the voluntarily uninsured being forced into the pool, the addition of all those people with pre-existing conditions into the insurance pool would cause everyone's premiums to skyrocket.

They need the money and the good health of the voluntarily uninsured to offset the cost of taking care of the pre-existing condition sick people.

How many years has it been and you still don't know this?

What you fail to take into account is that as health care costs rise, so do the cost of insurance premiums. There comes a time when we also have a load of INVOLUNTARILY uninsured people - and not just those with pre-existing conditions - who would then have very limited access to care.

The CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NC had a video (don't know if it's still on their website) where he said that if the government passed a law saying that EVERYONE had to be covered under some form of insurance that he would immediately drop their underwriting department's pre-existing condition policy. I read that as "you can't get something for nothing".

If you're in the camp which recommends that "if you can't pay for your own care, then die and be done with it", there's no point in discussing this any further. ACA isn't the "cure" to all our health care problems, and there is most likely a better way. But, you have to start somewhere. Who knows? Maybe by 2022 we'll be on our way to setting up a much better national health law that makes insurance obsolete.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The whole point of the individual mandate is to stop the freeloaders that use ER's for walk in clinics, raking up massive bills, then stiffing those that actually have insurance to pay for them with higher premiums.

Wrong. The purpose is to offset the cost of forcing insurance companies to carry people with pre-existing conditions, idiot.

That's why the issue of severability was raised with the mandate. Everyone but you knows that without the mandate the ACA collapses.

Without the voluntarily uninsured being forced into the pool, the addition of all those people with pre-existing conditions into the insurance pool would cause everyone's premiums to skyrocket.

They need the money and the good health of the voluntarily uninsured to offset the cost of taking care of the pre-existing condition sick people.

How many years has it been and you still don't know this?

What you fail to take into account is that as health care costs rise, so do the cost of insurance premiums. There comes a time when we also have a load of INVOLUNTARILY uninsured people - and not just those with pre-existing conditions - who would then have very limited access to care.

The CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NC had a video (don't know if it's still on their website) where he said that if the government passed a law saying that EVERYONE had to be covered under some form of insurance that he would immediately drop their underwriting department's pre-existing condition policy. I read that as "you can't get something for nothing".

If you're in the camp which recommends that "if you can't pay for your own care, then die and be done with it", there's no point in discussing this any further. ACA isn't the "cure" to all our health care problems, and there is most likely a better way. But, you have to start somewhere. Who knows? Maybe by 2022 we'll be on our way to setting up a much better national health law that makes insurance obsolete.

Yeah, might as well hope that Dr.'s take chickens in payment.

Oh wait, that's been done...

 

[oldernwiser]

Remember the opt-out concept when the little army of suits comes knocking on your door to flash their IRS credentials as they tap your bank account and pension and haul away your property for non-compliance with a freaking 3,000 page law that few people read and nobody understands.

Unless you're a large corporation that has been skipping out on paying the excise taxes for over-insuring your employees, you have nothing to worry about there. ACA does not give the IRS prosecutorial power to do anything you mention to individuals. I believe the penalty would be simply withheld from your tax returns. And, before you start, if you don't make enough cash in the year to have that much in returns, you would most likely already be covered under Medicaid for either a really low price or even for free.

Of course, if YOU had read the law (which you can find here) you would know that.

 

[oldernwiser]

Wrong. The purpose is to offset the cost of forcing insurance companies to carry people with pre-existing conditions, idiot.

That's why the issue of severability was raised with the mandate. Everyone but you knows that without the mandate the ACA collapses.

Without the voluntarily uninsured being forced into the pool, the addition of all those people with pre-existing conditions into the insurance pool would cause everyone's premiums to skyrocket.

They need the money and the good health of the voluntarily uninsured to offset the cost of taking care of the pre-existing condition sick people.

How many years has it been and you still don't know this?

What you fail to take into account is that as health care costs rise, so do the cost of insurance premiums. There comes a time when we also have a load of INVOLUNTARILY uninsured people - and not just those with pre-existing conditions - who would then have very limited access to care.

The CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NC had a video (don't know if it's still on their website) where he said that if the government passed a law saying that EVERYONE had to be covered under some form of insurance that he would immediately drop their underwriting department's pre-existing condition policy. I read that as "you can't get something for nothing".

If you're in the camp which recommends that "if you can't pay for your own care, then die and be done with it", there's no point in discussing this any further. ACA isn't the "cure" to all our health care problems, and there is most likely a better way. But, you have to start somewhere. Who knows? Maybe by 2022 we'll be on our way to setting up a much better national health law that makes insurance obsolete.

Yeah, might as well hope that Dr.'s take chickens in payment.

Oh wait, that's been done...

Yeah it was. And back then, doctors were reluctant to take them. Sometimes it was a meal, or a warm bed as they traveled to care for their patients.

Now we pay them MANY chickens. And if we don't have a big enough flock, we get kicked to the curb. I just don't understand where that's the right thing to do.

 

[oldernwiser]

It is simply not true that you can't get medical care unless you have insurance. I have never had insurance. I never went without necessary medical care either. I just paid for it. When I had to go into the hospital, for one thing, if you have no insurance the bill is automatically discounted 75%, then I made payments on the small balance.

That's a wonderful thing, and you're truly blessed to be healthy enough that your costs are low and that you don't have to live paycheck to paycheck so that you can put a little extra aside just in case.

Hypothetically though, what if, during the course of a routine physical your doctor found something serious. Are you thinking that you'd still have the option to pay your bill in installments when your costs are far more than you can make in 5 years (excluding medication, of course)? Some people pay more than $5k per month just for meds due to a totally unexpected illness. Could you absorb all that?

And what if we're talking long-term? So - you'd still have all the costs, but your job goes away either because you can't work anymore or your excess costs have to be absorbed by your employer. Can you still absorb the cost?

Understand that without insurance, a hospital CAN and very often DOES refuse treatment - no matter how survivable the problem - based on your ability to pay. Being uninsured is a HUGE risk - if you "win", you get to keep a few bucks but if you lose the bet, who's paying your funeral costs?

 

[uscitizen]

Are you crazy? Individuals simply cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. That's why we have government!

Are you crazy? Individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter how much it cost the rest of us.

It does not cost you a dime if I do not have health insurance.

Not if you cannot afford health care and just die. But if you go to the hospital it costs us.

 

[FA_Q2]

Remember the opt-out concept when the little army of suits comes knocking on your door to flash their IRS credentials as they tap your bank account and pension and haul away your property for non-compliance with a freaking 3,000 page law that few people read and nobody understands.

Unless you're a large corporation that has been skipping out on paying the excise taxes for over-insuring your employees, you have nothing to worry about there. ACA does not give the IRS prosecutorial power to do anything you mention to individuals. I believe the penalty would be simply withheld from your tax returns. And, before you start, if you don't make enough cash in the year to have that much in returns, you would most likely already be covered under Medicaid for either a really low price or even for free.

Of course, if YOU had read the law (which you can find here) you would know that.

Bullshit and you know it. The tax is collected as a tax and there is nothing in the ACA that changes the means of the IRS to collect. That is a fact. The IRS can do all the same things that they normally can do when you owe them money. Simple as that.

 

[oldernwiser]

Remember the opt-out concept when the little army of suits comes knocking on your door to flash their IRS credentials as they tap your bank account and pension and haul away your property for non-compliance with a freaking 3,000 page law that few people read and nobody understands.

Unless you're a large corporation that has been skipping out on paying the excise taxes for over-insuring your employees, you have nothing to worry about there. ACA does not give the IRS prosecutorial power to do anything you mention to individuals. I believe the penalty would be simply withheld from your tax returns. And, before you start, if you don't make enough cash in the year to have that much in returns, you would most likely already be covered under Medicaid for either a really low price or even for free.

Of course, if YOU had read the law (which you can find here) you would know that.

Bullshit and you know it. The tax is collected as a tax and there is nothing in the ACA that changes the means of the IRS to collect. That is a fact. The IRS can do all the same things that they normally can do when you owe them money. Simple as that.

That's actually a Hannity "fact". Even CJ Roberts made mention of the way this "tax" was to be collected in his argument. There was no punitive action taken by any government agency if you failed to pay and that's why it was such a stretch to call it something other than a penalty.

I've read the law from the link I posted above. Sections 9 & 10 cover the taxes and how they get collected. Every item called a tax directly specifies the collection procedures in the IRS code with the exception of the mandate. In that section, ACA directly gives the IRS the ability to collect but not to punish.

In fact, there's all kinds of forgiveness built into the bill which allows for honest filing mistakes by employers, for example.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Ever since the affordable care act was passed, the right wingers have been going into a complete rampage over having to actually grow up and get health insurance, instead of just freeloading off the rest of the hard working americans.

Now to shut them up and for them to keep their "freedom", should there be an opt-out clause? By signing an opt out wavier, this would mean an up front payment for all medical services. If they require expensive treatment, this will all be need to be paid up front (cash, no credit or loans would be applicable) and the same with a 911 call or emergency.

They would have to "carry their papers" such as a bank statement with a debit card or credit card (no checks) to cover the likely $600 ambulance ride, plus $1,000 to walk in the door of an ER. From there the care would be only administered by how much funds they have available. Run out, then you get a wheel chair ride to the curb, no matter how sick. Sound fair?

GUARANTEED...all of the young libs who cried for Obamacare would opt-out in a heartbeat to keep from paying $500 a month for insurance.

I pay far less than that, Ricky. Now go smoke your dope and play your arcade games, and give Ray $60 for the VLT's.

Well ok $500 is a bit high, but not that far out of reality for good insurance.
You can get state minimum here for about $250 a month - but is an absolute joke...covers practically nothing - and for what it does cover you have a $1000 deductible.
My daughter paid...I think it was about $360 for 80/20/500 that paid office visits etc...you know...actual health insurance.

 

[Pho_King]

Are you crazy? Individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter how much it cost the rest of us.

It does not cost you a dime if I do not have health insurance.

Not if you cannot afford health care and just die. But if you go to the hospital it costs us.

So you agree that the failure of some to purchase health insurance does not cost you a dime, any more than the failure of suv owners to buy Prius costs Prius owners a dime.

Failing to pay for medical care is something different altogether. Having medical insurance doesn't guarantee payment for services. Try not to confuse yourself in the future. Be accurate.

 

[auditor0007]

Ever since the affordable care act was passed, the right wingers have been going into a complete rampage over having to actually grow up and get health insurance, instead of just freeloading off the rest of the hard working americans.

Now to shut them up and for them to keep their "freedom", should there be an opt-out clause? By signing an opt out wavier, this would mean an up front payment for all medical services. If they require expensive treatment, this will all be need to be paid up front (cash, no credit or loans would be applicable) and the same with a 911 call or emergency.

They would have to "carry their papers" such as a bank statement with a debit card or credit card (no checks) to cover the likely $600 ambulance ride, plus $1,000 to walk in the door of an ER. From there the care would be only administered by how much funds they have available. Run out, then you get a wheel chair ride to the curb, no matter how sick. Sound fair?

It's like saying we won't require hospitals to treat people at the emergency room if they can't pay. It's just not going to happen. Most of these people actually do have insurance already; they are just up in arms because they don't like the government telling them what to do. What they are missing is the fact that too many people go without adequate coverage, in many cases not getting the treatment they need. When they finally do, they can't pay, and we all end up paying in the end. It has so much more to do with their ideology than it does with wanting a reasonable solution to a major problem.

 

[auditor0007]

Why don't you just answer for me?

Ok.. I can only guess - but here's what I think happened. Most of them did really want single payer, or at least a public option. I mean, they're Democrats - they gotta love government running things. But they either weren't confident the public would be behind them, or were too afraid to spurn their corporate benefactors.

I think that they intend to screw things up so badly that Single Payer will eventually look good in comparison.

The bottom line is that the ACA will help reduce costs, but it will not reduce them enough. In the end, costs will continue to rise, although at a slower rate. Eventually, we will have no other choice but to move to a one payer system. It's unfortunate that more people haven't jumped on the single payer system bandwagon yet, because it would have been so much more effective at reducing costs while helping make American businesses more competitive globally. And we could have left open an option for private supplemental insurance for those willing to pay. We could have started working on a completely new system that would have given us the best of both single payer while leaving private insurance available for those who wanted and could afford a gold plan.

 

[oldernwiser]

Ever since the affordable care act was passed, the right wingers have been going into a complete rampage over having to actually grow up and get health insurance, instead of just freeloading off the rest of the hard working americans.

Now to shut them up and for them to keep their "freedom", should there be an opt-out clause? By signing an opt out wavier, this would mean an up front payment for all medical services. If they require expensive treatment, this will all be need to be paid up front (cash, no credit or loans would be applicable) and the same with a 911 call or emergency.

They would have to "carry their papers" such as a bank statement with a debit card or credit card (no checks) to cover the likely $600 ambulance ride, plus $1,000 to walk in the door of an ER. From there the care would be only administered by how much funds they have available. Run out, then you get a wheel chair ride to the curb, no matter how sick. Sound fair?

It's like saying we won't require hospitals to treat people at the emergency room if they can't pay. It's just not going to happen. Most of these people actually do have insurance already; they are just up in arms because they don't like the government telling them what to do. What they are missing is the fact that too many people go without adequate coverage, in many cases not getting the treatment they need. When they finally do, they can't pay, and we all end up paying in the end. It has so much more to do with their ideology than it does with wanting a reasonable solution to a major problem.

Well - almost. EMTALA act specifies that an ER need only stabilize your condition without regard to your ability to pay. They'll treat your pain, stop any bleeding, and get you either walking on your own or with the help of a family member. Which means that if you, without insurance or a large sum of cash in the bank, were to cut off your fingers in an accident, the hospital would only be required to give you dilaudid and sew up the stumps so you don't bleed out. Then they'll give you a pat on the bottom and a warm "have a nice day". You'd have to wave back with the other hand.

At least under ACA, it doesn't have to happen that way. It's incredibly short-sighted to look at this as "I pay my own way, why don't you?". Particularly because at any time in your life it COULD be you wiggling those ghost fingers. Sticking your head in the sand won't make that possibility any less real.

 

[Black_Label]

At least under ACA, it doesn't have to happen that way. It's incredibly short-sighted to look at this as "I pay my own way, why don't you?". Particularly because at any time in your life it COULD be you wiggling those ghost fingers. Sticking your head in the sand won't make that possibility any less real.

That's the point. People will now have coverage to make sure that doesn't happen, but for those lone stand out right wingers that think they are "sticking it to da libs and O'bummer" by opting out will receive no health care unless they can pay up front.

They are always the first to try and be tough guys, as well as the first to start crying once they don't get their handouts.

No pay = no service.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

You pay 2.5% of your taxable income if you don't have health insurance.

So I guess if you're willing to give up 2.5% of your taxable income, you can opt-out.


Btw, after a little thinking, I think the best way to described the Indv. Mandate is that its a 'Penatly disgused as a tax' if that makes any sense.

 

[Black_Label]

You pay 2.5% of your taxable income if you don't have health insurance.

So I guess if you're willing to give up 2.5% of your taxable income, you can opt-out.


Btw, after a little thinking, I think the best way to described the Indv. Mandate is that its a 'Penatly disgused as a tax' if that makes any sense.

No, it doesn't.