7 ms·

I am not American, but as I understand it, if you earn so little that you can't afford a plan, you can get vouchers to cover the cost. I'm not sure of the speci

I am not American, but as I understand it, if you earn so little that you can't afford a plan, you can get vouchers to cover the cost. I'm not sure of the specific boundaries and I think it varies per state. If you detail more information I can always Google.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. It's my problem, not theirs. I would have an extreme moral aversion to seeking a handout, even if that aversion is to my own personal detriment. Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems.
- benburleson 13y ago
  The thing is, what you think is your "own personal problem" doesn't really affect only you. If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well." Economically and socially, of course, but epidemiologically as well!
- dangerlibrary 13y ago
  If you go to the emergency room with an untreated, preventable illness that has become critical, and you can't pay the bill, other people wind up footing the bill anyway. Maintenance is cheaper than repair.
  - webXL 13y ago
    Except mandatory "maintenance" doesn't lead to fewer repairs in this case. Google Oregon Medicare study and Emergency Room usage. A comment from reason.com sums it up nicely: "Emergency rooms are required by law to treat it. If you are poor, they are unlikely to ever collect the bill for doing so. So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it.". The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one." http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-emergency-room#comment_4219297 http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-e...
    - d23 13y ago
      > So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Because if you don't have a life threatening condition, you're not going to see a doctor in "hours" in the emergency room. You're going to be triage'd to the lowest possible slot, and it's my understanding that if they believe you can just be sent on your way, they'll do that. You can't go in for an ear ache. > Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it." The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one. First of all, there are plenty of respected folks who don't think that's "insane". Presumably more respected than "John" from the comments section. But regardless, that's what co-pays and deductibles are for. Let's also not forget that going to the doctor is still not a joy ride. There's forms, and there's a wait. I have health insurance, and I don't take a trip to the doctor's office like it's the local candy shop. Why would the poor, who feel the impact of a co-pay even more than I do?
      - DrStalker 13y ago
        In Australia you can go in to emergency for anything, but you'll be waiting until there's nothing more urgent in front of you. If you are triaged as having a trivial condition and you insist on a doctor instead of the triage nurses advice you're in for a looooong wait. You're spot on about doctor visits not being fun. We also have free GP access and people will see a doctor if they have a reason but most people would rather stay home and rest than go out to the Doctor's just because they have a sniffle.
- oinksoft 13y ago
  Claiming poverty while not accepting public assistance in the same breath is absurd, unless this is a poverty vow. In any case you represent the corner of the corner, people who would rather take a tax penalty for ethical reasons than accept vouchers. Most people in your position are falling over themselves at the prospect of decent health coverage.
  - ensignavenger 13y ago
    Really? The plans that I have seen that could be purchased with the subsidies is no where near what I would call decent! It may vary by State, and I have only seen the "sample plans" that have been published.
- rtpg 13y ago
  How can you complain about the lack of a free luck, but then not take the free lunch when pointed out that it is indeed present? People want everyone to be covered, which is how Obamacare got pushed through in the first place. You not getting covored can potential end up costing us more in the healthcare system (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) if you don't take this and use it.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) This is interesting. Is this true? I apologize if it sounded like I was complaining. I only meant I chose this life. How is it reasonable for me to choose this, and then force other people to pay for me? The other alternative is that I should feel like a shitty human for choosing not to maximize my earning potential and getting myself into this position in the first place. But part of having freedom of choice is the freedom to choose poorly. It's my own life, a life I'm not burdening others with. If I break my arm, can't afford to pay for it, and then become bankrupt as a result, then I have suffered a personal penalty which society will remember and will punish me for. And while I may have temporarily burdened others by not being able to pay for my emergency care, I've still been penalized as a result, which seems quite fair. Whereas taking a handout to cover the same expense feels like I got something for nothing. I admit that there are some good arguments in this thread, though, so perhaps I should reevaluate my moral perspectives. But it's extremely difficult for me to become comfortable with the idea of encroaching on other people's lives by force.
    - dangerlibrary 13y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States#Personal_bankruptcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States... Relevant bit: "Although the individual causes of bankruptcy are complex and multifaceted, the majority of personal bankruptcies involve substantial medical bills"
    - rtpg 13y ago
      http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-pers... Here's a citation on the bankruptcy statistic. Its corroborated by many other sources (and many other studies). No matter what your intentions on the topic, if you end up in the emergency room for a preventable condition (which will lead to more treatment), you will end up costing everybody much more than simply taking the vouchers... take that fact as you will, but statistically speaking it's very likely you'll end up "costing" society more by not participating in the healthcare system.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. No it wouldn't. I provide it to my countrymen no matter their condition. > Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems. You live in a world where your tax money already is pooled and so you already do take money from people to pay for things as simple as the roads you drive on, or the emergency services you use. There's no moral argument to not participating. You've paid the taxes and you have a right to the return.
- duaneb 13y ago
  > then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. That's in your head. Realistically it's in everybody's interest to keep their countrymen happy.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    That's true, but obviously the trade-off isn't one-to-one (or better) through all of happiness-cost space. It's important to ask where a particular expenditure falls.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I second the "maintenance is cheaper than repair". If you neglect your health now, and buy into health insurance later, you're asking future me to bear higher premiums and everyone is worse off - you and others. As one of your fellow countrymen presently footing the bill (in that I'm paying taxes and I have good health insurance with no subsidy), I assure you that helping get you covered is no skin off my back. "But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems." If you're found unconscious somewhere because of an untreated ailment, the "cost to other people for paying to for your own personal problems" will be dramatically higher. If you're conscious, you could maybe refuse emergency assistance, though I'd encourage you not to. If you really need to make it up to your fellow citizens, meet your civic responsibilities: put thought and research into voting, serve - honestly and intelligently - on juries when called, etc. We ask some of you, it's fair for you to take what you're given without being exploitative.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
This isn't exactly correct, there's something of a gap you can fall into. If you earn very little, you might qualify for Medicaid, which is essentially taxpayer-paid healthcare via the government. If you earn low amounts, you might qualify for various levels of subsidies on private insurance plans through the state-run health exchanges. However, there are certainly situations in which you may not qualify for medicaid, and still not earn enough to afford a private plan, even with subsidies. There are definitely people in this situation. This wasn't unforeseen, it was known it would happen.
- jbooth 13y ago
  The gap is covered in about half the states. The other half don't like Obama so they refused the free money from the feds to cover the gap for their citizens. Can't make this stuff up.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    "free money" Its not "free money", its taxes paid by taxpayers. There is no "free money" in government.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      No, the money that was refused did not reduce anyone's taxes, so your statement is false. Obviously, expenditure has to come from somewhere, but when the government operates in a deficit, marginal spending comes from debt, not taxes.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Debt taken out by the government has to be paid by the tax payers in both principal and interest. There is no free money. Not spending additional federal money is a virtue not a problem.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
ensignavenger 13y ago
The subsidies only start after you earn a certain amount of income. If you earn less than that, you don't get any subsidies. Also, the subsidies won't pay for all of it, and the more you earn, the less subsidy you get. The original plan was to force the States to extend Medicaid (Government provided health insurance) to cover those that would not be getting subsidies because they made too little. The problem was, the Federal Government was only going to float the bill for this for a few years, then it was going to be up to the States to come up with the money to keep it going! Many States balked and refused to expand Medicaid, citing the fact that they could not afford this massive increase in their budget. The Supreme Court agreed with the States that the Federal Government could not force them to expand Medicaid unless the Federal Government was going to float the bill. So now, anyone that doesn't earn a certain amount of money will be without health insurance, and the cost of healthcare will be higher for them when they do get sick (For many reasons, such as the medical device tax). Fortunately, for now, if you live in a State that did not expand Medicaid, and you would have qualified had they expanded it, you won't have to pay the penalty tax.
- asnyder 13y ago
  The only reason those states didn't extend Medicaid is that they dislike Obama and what he stands for. It's 100% covered by the federal government for 3 years, and then 90% until 2022. http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php
  - ensignavenger 13y ago
    "It's 100% covered by the federal government for 3 years, and then 90% until 2022." Exactly this. So, who pays for the 10% after three years? The 100% after 2022? That's right, the State. Sure, maybe they didn't like Obamacare. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a real concern for a very real budget, which the legislature is constitutionally required to keep balanced.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. It's my problem, not theirs. I would have an extreme moral aversion to seeking a handout, even if that aversion is to my own personal detriment. Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems.

benburleson 13y ago
The thing is, what you think is your "own personal problem" doesn't really affect only you. If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well." Economically and socially, of course, but epidemiologically as well!
dangerlibrary 13y ago
If you go to the emergency room with an untreated, preventable illness that has become critical, and you can't pay the bill, other people wind up footing the bill anyway. Maintenance is cheaper than repair.
- webXL 13y ago
  Except mandatory "maintenance" doesn't lead to fewer repairs in this case. Google Oregon Medicare study and Emergency Room usage. A comment from reason.com sums it up nicely: "Emergency rooms are required by law to treat it. If you are poor, they are unlikely to ever collect the bill for doing so. So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it.". The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one." http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-emergency-room#comment_4219297 http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-e...
  - d23 13y ago
    > So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Because if you don't have a life threatening condition, you're not going to see a doctor in "hours" in the emergency room. You're going to be triage'd to the lowest possible slot, and it's my understanding that if they believe you can just be sent on your way, they'll do that. You can't go in for an ear ache. > Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it." The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one. First of all, there are plenty of respected folks who don't think that's "insane". Presumably more respected than "John" from the comments section. But regardless, that's what co-pays and deductibles are for. Let's also not forget that going to the doctor is still not a joy ride. There's forms, and there's a wait. I have health insurance, and I don't take a trip to the doctor's office like it's the local candy shop. Why would the poor, who feel the impact of a co-pay even more than I do?
    - DrStalker 13y ago
      In Australia you can go in to emergency for anything, but you'll be waiting until there's nothing more urgent in front of you. If you are triaged as having a trivial condition and you insist on a doctor instead of the triage nurses advice you're in for a looooong wait. You're spot on about doctor visits not being fun. We also have free GP access and people will see a doctor if they have a reason but most people would rather stay home and rest than go out to the Doctor's just because they have a sniffle.
oinksoft 13y ago
Claiming poverty while not accepting public assistance in the same breath is absurd, unless this is a poverty vow. In any case you represent the corner of the corner, people who would rather take a tax penalty for ethical reasons than accept vouchers. Most people in your position are falling over themselves at the prospect of decent health coverage.
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  Really? The plans that I have seen that could be purchased with the subsidies is no where near what I would call decent! It may vary by State, and I have only seen the "sample plans" that have been published.
rtpg 13y ago
How can you complain about the lack of a free luck, but then not take the free lunch when pointed out that it is indeed present? People want everyone to be covered, which is how Obamacare got pushed through in the first place. You not getting covored can potential end up costing us more in the healthcare system (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) if you don't take this and use it.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) This is interesting. Is this true? I apologize if it sounded like I was complaining. I only meant I chose this life. How is it reasonable for me to choose this, and then force other people to pay for me? The other alternative is that I should feel like a shitty human for choosing not to maximize my earning potential and getting myself into this position in the first place. But part of having freedom of choice is the freedom to choose poorly. It's my own life, a life I'm not burdening others with. If I break my arm, can't afford to pay for it, and then become bankrupt as a result, then I have suffered a personal penalty which society will remember and will punish me for. And while I may have temporarily burdened others by not being able to pay for my emergency care, I've still been penalized as a result, which seems quite fair. Whereas taking a handout to cover the same expense feels like I got something for nothing. I admit that there are some good arguments in this thread, though, so perhaps I should reevaluate my moral perspectives. But it's extremely difficult for me to become comfortable with the idea of encroaching on other people's lives by force.
  - dangerlibrary 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States#Personal_bankruptcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States... Relevant bit: "Although the individual causes of bankruptcy are complex and multifaceted, the majority of personal bankruptcies involve substantial medical bills"
  - rtpg 13y ago
    http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-pers... Here's a citation on the bankruptcy statistic. Its corroborated by many other sources (and many other studies). No matter what your intentions on the topic, if you end up in the emergency room for a preventable condition (which will lead to more treatment), you will end up costing everybody much more than simply taking the vouchers... take that fact as you will, but statistically speaking it's very likely you'll end up "costing" society more by not participating in the healthcare system.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hahainternet 13y ago
> If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. No it wouldn't. I provide it to my countrymen no matter their condition. > Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems. You live in a world where your tax money already is pooled and so you already do take money from people to pay for things as simple as the roads you drive on, or the emergency services you use. There's no moral argument to not participating. You've paid the taxes and you have a right to the return.
duaneb 13y ago
> then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. That's in your head. Realistically it's in everybody's interest to keep their countrymen happy.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  That's true, but obviously the trade-off isn't one-to-one (or better) through all of happiness-cost space. It's important to ask where a particular expenditure falls.
dllthomas 13y ago
I second the "maintenance is cheaper than repair". If you neglect your health now, and buy into health insurance later, you're asking future me to bear higher premiums and everyone is worse off - you and others. As one of your fellow countrymen presently footing the bill (in that I'm paying taxes and I have good health insurance with no subsidy), I assure you that helping get you covered is no skin off my back. "But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems." If you're found unconscious somewhere because of an untreated ailment, the "cost to other people for paying to for your own personal problems" will be dramatically higher. If you're conscious, you could maybe refuse emergency assistance, though I'd encourage you not to. If you really need to make it up to your fellow citizens, meet your civic responsibilities: put thought and research into voting, serve - honestly and intelligently - on juries when called, etc. We ask some of you, it's fair for you to take what you're given without being exploitative.

waterlesscloud 13y ago

This isn't exactly correct, there's something of a gap you can fall into. If you earn very little, you might qualify for Medicaid, which is essentially taxpayer-paid healthcare via the government. If you earn low amounts, you might qualify for various levels of subsidies on private insurance plans through the state-run health exchanges. However, there are certainly situations in which you may not qualify for medicaid, and still not earn enough to afford a private plan, even with subsidies. There are definitely people in this situation. This wasn't unforeseen, it was known it would happen.

jbooth 13y ago
The gap is covered in about half the states. The other half don't like Obama so they refused the free money from the feds to cover the gap for their citizens. Can't make this stuff up.
- protomyth 13y ago
  "free money" Its not "free money", its taxes paid by taxpayers. There is no "free money" in government.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    No, the money that was refused did not reduce anyone's taxes, so your statement is false. Obviously, expenditure has to come from somewhere, but when the government operates in a deficit, marginal spending comes from debt, not taxes.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Debt taken out by the government has to be paid by the tax payers in both principal and interest. There is no free money. Not spending additional federal money is a virtue not a problem.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago

ensignavenger 13y ago

The subsidies only start after you earn a certain amount of income. If you earn less than that, you don't get any subsidies. Also, the subsidies won't pay for all of it, and the more you earn, the less subsidy you get. The original plan was to force the States to extend Medicaid (Government provided health insurance) to cover those that would not be getting subsidies because they made too little. The problem was, the Federal Government was only going to float the bill for this for a few years, then it was going to be up to the States to come up with the money to keep it going! Many States balked and refused to expand Medicaid, citing the fact that they could not afford this massive increase in their budget. The Supreme Court agreed with the States that the Federal Government could not force them to expand Medicaid unless the Federal Government was going to float the bill. So now, anyone that doesn't earn a certain amount of money will be without health insurance, and the cost of healthcare will be higher for them when they do get sick (For many reasons, such as the medical device tax). Fortunately, for now, if you live in a State that did not expand Medicaid, and you would have qualified had they expanded it, you won't have to pay the penalty tax.

asnyder 13y ago
The only reason those states didn't extend Medicaid is that they dislike Obama and what he stands for. It's 100% covered by the federal government for 3 years, and then 90% until 2022. http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  "It's 100% covered by the federal government for 3 years, and then 90% until 2022." Exactly this. So, who pays for the 10% after three years? The 100% after 2022? That's right, the State. Sure, maybe they didn't like Obamacare. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a real concern for a very real budget, which the legislature is constitutionally required to keep balanced.