Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 383 posts

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#111

Post by bdcravens »

swagv wrote: post #29
pbreit wrote: post #12

Why would it not be more affordable? You're not getting anything.

You can pay and get something or pay and get nothing.

If you don't go to the doctor and don't need medicine, the "something" isn't valuable especially if it's more expensive than the "nothing". (I say that as someone with a preexisting condition who is happy to pay my premiums and get the medicine I need; I also grew up in a family where we didn't have insurance but somehow always had cigarettes and cable TV, so I know multiple perspectives)

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#112

Post by MCRed »

zrail wrote: post #108
MCRed wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing to my "free market" insurance before the ACA was passed, I had much more coverage (it was real insurance: eg: pay in advance against a risk, rather than covering pre-existing conditions which violates the definition of insurance, since you're not pooling money against risk, but paying for current liabilities.) ..... and not only did I have more coverage, but my deductibles were 1/5th what they are now and t…

What was the lifetime cap on your pre-ACA insurance? Could you get it if you had been sick before applying? Here's a sadly common scenario: you have a baby born prematurely and they end up in NICU for a month because of a heart condition. They exceed their lifetime cap after two weeks because NICU has always been atrociously expensive. Because they have a heart condition, they are never able to get insurance on their…

$2M IIRC, and yes.

The reason that NICU is so expensive is government has driven up the costs astronomically by intervening in the market place over the past 100 years. The ACA is not reversing that, but accelerating that. If the lifetime cap for infant care was $1M, the effect of this intervention is $961,583. Or put another way, that baby would cost %96 less or about $40k for the stay in the NICU.

This is according to the study done by Milton Friedman in the 1970s showing government interventions drove up costs 26fold, and drove down availability. (So, there's probably 30 years more of impact not accounted for in that 26x figure, its probably 50x now.)

Not true about never having insurance again, and anyway the reason pre-existing conditions were excluded is that plans that specifically targeted people with those pre-existing conditions (all diabetics need insulin, right? why not buy it in bulk?) were illegal.

So, government is the cause of the problem in the first place.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#113

Post by bdcravens »

MCRed wrote: post #103
jhulla wrote: post #4

Personal experience with ACA: As of 2016, we're onto our 3rd insurer. Each prior one has dropped our local doctors, physicians groups and hospital. With each insurance change, our deductible has gone up, our premium has increased and our co-pay, co-insurance has increased. In effect, our ACA plan has become an extremely expensive catastrophic insurance plan.

Comparing to my "free market" insurance before the ACA was passed, I had much more coverage (it was real insurance: eg: pay in advance against a risk, rather than covering pre-existing conditions which violates the definition of insurance, since you're not pooling money against risk, but paying for current liabilities.) ..... and not only did I have more coverage, but my deductibles were 1/5th what they are now and t…

> just claim you have a life change to get around the limited enrollment periods.

How stringent are they on proving this? Do they just take your word?

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#114

Post by rsync »

pmorici wrote: post #10
dpweb wrote: post #5

I'm against Obamacare, but if I was for it, I would peg the penalties at 2x the avg basic exchange coverage price. Also, people with high deductibles should make sure you take advantage of tax benefits, HSA for instance. The $6000 deductible may really only be a $4800 deductible once you figure in the tax deduction. If you're talking Obamacare coverage being 20% higher than the penality (I'm assuming the penalty is n…

My current plan has an has an HSA component but the company that administrates the account, BenefitWallet, has some fine print in the account agreement that they charge an account fee for balances less than several thousand dollars. Realistically I only spend several hundred dollars per year on healthcare stuff so I don't think it is to my advantage to lock up that much money in a non-interest bearing account or pay…

Just contact your bank and open an HSA account with them - they'll fall all over themselves to help you do it.

It will be interest bearing and you can tie it to bill-pay and issue mailed checks directly out of it. It's great.

Also, you can leave unused HSA funds in the account and let them grow, tax free, for future medical needs.[1]

[1] https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/how-you-can-utilize-hsa-...

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#115

Post by HarryHirsch »

stvswn wrote: post #106
x5n1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so it goes, National Healthcare like Britain or Canada is what America needs and what the medical establishment does not want. But somehow I think America would screw that up as well.

When a little bit of socialism fails, why is the answer always more socialism?

Because socialism works? Just today: change of health insurance. Need primary care physician. Takes six weeks to be seen. Six weeks, to be scheduled for minor surgery. You might choose to waste an hour on the phone to find a less booked-out physician. In Socialist Britain you are guaranteed to be seen within 48 hours! Here in the US the only thing guaranteed is the waste of time.

Seems that is a feature of the plan. If you aren't seen on time you won't consume healthcare and the insurance gets to keep all the pretty money paid to them.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#116

Post by Frondo »

MCRed wrote: post #105
Frondo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read this stuff, I'm a little astounded about how bad the situation must be in other states. Here in the Pacific Northwest, my premiums have actually been going down and the plan offerings are getting better. The provider I was on did go out of business so I had to switch, and I'm now paying less for more services. And, to be totally frank, having had a pre-existing condition that kept me from buying any insur…

The reason nobody could sell you insurance with your pre-existing condition before is that regulations prevented making plans for conditions. EG: You couldn't make a national diabetes insurance plan for people with diabetes (and the economies of scale that go along with a pool of all people with diabetes) because it was effectively illegal. If the ACA had merely fixed that, then your premiums would be going down more…

You know what? My pre-existing condition was that I'd had my gallbladder removed in the early 2000s. That's it. Uninsurable for 10 years because of an operation which I recovered from fully in less than a week.

Telling me it's "regulations" that had every insurer reject me? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#117

Post by Cyberdog »

mikeash wrote: post #35
dibujante wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Canadian, I am astonished at how expensive even the cheapest of these plans are. My monthly healthcare cost amounts to $178, once you factor in the taxes I pay that go to healthcare. That's cheaper than any of the plans in this article. How do people find these prices bearable?

They're cheaper than getting sick and not having insurance. I'll pay almost anything to ensure that a sudden medical event doesn't bankrupt me.

The end result of the "Affordable" "Care" Act for myself and many others is that we pay more for lesser insurance. So we do pay "almost anything," then sudden medical events can, if not bankrupt us, still cost a pretty penny thanks to the high deductibles.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#118

Post by Laaw »

mschuster91 wrote: post #110

Every time I see one of these articles (or anything related to US healthcare) and read the comments, I can't help but ask myself how rotten a country can be. In this case, as a German, I dare say "rotten to the core". It apparently is impossible to move the US healthcare system to a system where every person in the US is eligible to even the most expensive emergency healthcare without having to fear bankruptcy afterw…

Yeah, the vast majority of us have healthcare, aren't really sick, and occasionally when we do get really sick, our insurance pays the bills.

I had an emergency root canal earlier last year in the US, cost me zero dollars, and I've got one of those high-deductible plans (it's the HSA that covered that).

I'm actually a little surprised you (or anyone on HN) are so eager to jump at the "worst case" stories and presume they're normal. This is a data problem, not a "let's tell our horror stories" kind of problem. Every system has people who fall through the cracks, these half-baked "I'd just do X" without any research is exactly the kind of thinking that causes problems.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#119

Post by Daishiman »

stvswn wrote: post #106
x5n1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so it goes, National Healthcare like Britain or Canada is what America needs and what the medical establishment does not want. But somehow I think America would screw that up as well.

When a little bit of socialism fails, why is the answer always more socialism?

Implying that public health care is necessarily a "socialist" thing.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#120

Post by mschuster91 »

Laaw wrote: post #118
mschuster91 wrote: post #110

Every time I see one of these articles (or anything related to US healthcare) and read the comments, I can't help but ask myself how rotten a country can be. In this case, as a German, I dare say "rotten to the core". It apparently is impossible to move the US healthcare system to a system where every person in the US is eligible to even the most expensive emergency healthcare without having to fear bankruptcy afterw…

Yeah, the vast majority of us have healthcare, aren't really sick, and occasionally when we do get really sick, our insurance pays the bills. I had an emergency root canal earlier last year in the US, cost me zero dollars, and I've got one of those high-deductible plans (it's the HSA that covered that). I'm actually a little surprised you (or anyone on HN) are so eager to jump at the "worst case" stories and presume…

> I'm actually a little surprised you (or anyone on HN) is so eager to jump at the "worst case" stories and presume they're normal.

These "worst case" stories should not happen at all in any civilized country! One of them is one too much.

Post reply on HN