Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by orangecat » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:04 AM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #90

ploxiln wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's not traditionally how health insurance works in the US, but it's how all types of "insurance" should work - it should not be for routine costs. Insurance, generally, should be for unlikely unexpected costs. Otherwise, it's just involving an extra middle-man in payment, and that middle-man is going to make a profit. It's unfortunate that in the US, even for completely routine medical costs, you can't skip…

> I think the fixation on "everyone should have good health insurance" is making this dysfunctional situation permanently unfixable. Nah. Every citizen should have good health insurance that requires no out-of-pocket expenditures. There should be one plan, available to every citizen. There should be one payer, the Federal Government. Anything else is a recipe for price-gouging and ballooning costs.

There should be one plan, available to every citizen. There should be one payer, the Federal Government.

Should this also be the case for food, housing, and cell phones? If not, why?

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

#212

Post by pbreit » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:05 AM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #90

ploxiln wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's not traditionally how health insurance works in the US, but it's how all types of "insurance" should work - it should not be for routine costs. Insurance, generally, should be for unlikely unexpected costs. Otherwise, it's just involving an extra middle-man in payment, and that middle-man is going to make a profit. It's unfortunate that in the US, even for completely routine medical costs, you can't skip…

> I think the fixation on "everyone should have good health insurance" is making this dysfunctional situation permanently unfixable. Nah. Every citizen should have good health insurance that requires no out-of-pocket expenditures. There should be one plan, available to every citizen. There should be one payer, the Federal Government. Anything else is a recipe for price-gouging and ballooning costs.

In the US we ascribe much higher value to freedom of choice & markets, etc. We have elected to take the good (driving a disproportionate share of medical progress) with the bad (twice the cost for worse outcomes).

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

#213

Post by mgkimsal » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:06 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #198

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…

" Here in the Pacific Northwest, my premiums have actually been going down and the plan offerings are getting better." You are in the minority. Every insurance company that provides Obamacare in Oregon is increasing rates for the average customer this year. http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2015/07/more_than... In fact, the State of Oregon has actually ordered some of the companies to increase their rates mo…

That seems really crazy, but then... Frondo just said the company he was with before went out of business. Why? Were they, in fact, not charging enough to cover their costs (supposedly the motivation behind Oregon raising prices)?

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

#214

Post by jonlucc » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:06 AM UTC

Cyberdog wrote: post #117

mikeash wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How high is your deductible? I think the highest I've seen is $5k, which is nothing to sneeze at, but also not really in the realm of bankrupting most families.

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

#215

Post by PKop » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:07 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #190

stvswn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's was pretty easy to predict: allowing enrollment after a diagnosis was politically popular but a terrible economic disincentive to not buy insurance (because at that point, it isn't insurance -- it's a subscription plan for your treatments). The young and healthy needed to enroll for the economics to work, but the individual mandate was delayed for years -- because coercion isn't popular politically, and there wa…

> you have to buy a plan that covers things you don't need. Well... isn't that sort of the point of insurance all together? There's always going to be someone in an insurance plan getting some treatment that I'll never need, no?

Can never need under any circumstances (prenatal care, for example).

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

#216

Post by gozur88 » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:07 AM UTC

stvswn wrote: post #133

mgkimsal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand premiums going up annually. I don't understand 30-50% increases year on year.

It's was pretty easy to predict: allowing enrollment after a diagnosis was politically popular but a terrible economic disincentive to not buy insurance (because at that point, it isn't insurance -- it's a subscription plan for your treatments). The young and healthy needed to enroll for the economics to work, but the individual mandate was delayed for years -- because coercion isn't popular politically, and there wa…

>A good market would be one where you paid your doctor out of pocket for recurring, predictable costs and then bought insurance from a private company in order to guard against unforeseen catastrophes -- kind of like how your auto insurance policy doesn't pay for oil changes and car washes.

That works great if everyone is basically healthy. And it falls apart completely for people with ongoing medical conditions who either don't make a lot or are too sick to hold down a job.

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

#217

Post by nickff » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #210

nickff wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't convince others to defend your country through rhetoric and compensation, perhaps the country isn't worth defending; your comment implicitly assumes every state is worth sacrificing young lives for.

> your comment implicitly assumes every state is worth sacrificing young lives for. no, it assumes those in control of the state believe it is worth sacrificing young lives for.

Apologies if I misread your comment, but I read the following quote to imply that coercion was acceptable once the volunteer army was not enough:

>It's fine to have a volunteer force, until we need more. Then force is brought in.

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

#218

Post by digler999 » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:09 AM UTC

stvswn wrote: post #133

mgkimsal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand premiums going up annually. I don't understand 30-50% increases year on year.

It's was pretty easy to predict: allowing enrollment after a diagnosis was politically popular but a terrible economic disincentive to not buy insurance (because at that point, it isn't insurance -- it's a subscription plan for your treatments). The young and healthy needed to enroll for the economics to work, but the individual mandate was delayed for years -- because coercion isn't popular politically, and there wa…

If the government has billions of dollars in funds to blow up people, they have a few billion to heal people.

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

#219

Post by mgkimsal » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:09 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #217

mgkimsal wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your comment implicitly assumes every state is worth sacrificing young lives for. no, it assumes those in control of the state believe it is worth sacrificing young lives for.

Apologies if I misread your comment, but I read the following quote to imply that coercion was acceptable once the volunteer army was not enough: > It's fine to have a volunteer force, until we need more. Then force is brought in.

I don't believe it is acceptable, but the people in power probably (often?) do believe that it's acceptable, generally because it's not their own lives at risk.

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

#220

Post by snatoeusntaoeu » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 4:11 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #67

mgkimsal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand premiums going up annually. I don't understand 30-50% increases year on year.

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…

I feel bad for people in other states, in Oregon it was been a pretty sweet deal for me.

I moved back to Oregon from California several years ago. I was astonished at how much more expensive insurance was in OR than in CA.

I've been told that Oregon has had a lot of protectionism for local health insurers, so they didn't have to compete much. So perhaps you're just seeing Oregon coming into line with other states...

(By the way, I had a pinched nerve in my neck when I moved. No insurer would take me, and one told me that they wouldn't insure me until nine years had passed without any symptoms)