It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Potential Flaw With Healthcare Bill?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:16 PM
So under the new healthcare bill, I will have to pay a fine if I dont get insurance coverage.

From CNN:
• Citizens will be required to have acceptable coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 (or up to 2.5 percent of income) in 2016. Families will pay half the amount for children, up to a cap of $2,250 per family. After 2016, penalties are indexed to Consumer Price Index.

Also, the healthcare bill prevents insurance companies from denying me due to a pre existing condition right?

So look at this situation and tell me what you think.

What does the average plan for insurance cost? We will say around 300/mo just as an example ( i know its low). 300 x 12 is 3600 bucks a year for coverage. So if i didnt want coverage, I could just pay the fine and would be coming out on top saving lots of money, just hope I dont get sick right? But what if I get sick or get in a car accident? Since the insurance companies cant deny me coverage, couldnt I just sign up for coverage while I was sick or hurt, then once Im better, cancel the coverage? So pay fines until I need insurance, then sign up and then cancel once Ive been treated. Paying the max fine for an entire family of 2250 is still 1000 cheaper then getting insurance for one person @ 300 bucks a month.

Is there anything in the bill that prevents people from abusing the system like this?

[edit on 23-3-2010 by tdubz]

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by tdubz

a loophole already. Only been signed for less than 12 hrs. Nice work.

Sadly, the only difference I see from what it was, is that I will get fined because I can't afford $575 a month. If I get sick, I am screwed just the same. Just now, I have to forfeit more of what return I might get. This paln might have been good if they spent some time on it and thought it out. Raming it up my ass won't fix anything. It tastes just like the bailout. And here I thought the people had a say. Nevermind.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:06 PM
Hmmm ......good point. I just hope that the courts can throw this bill out before it destroys the country.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:07 PM
The part that says it will be tied to CPI after 2016 is what really bothers me. When inflation goes through the roof the price of insurance is going to skyrocket and that alone will be massive destructive to individuals and families across the country. The underclass we are creating today will suffer the most, as they will be priced out of everythig, including food.

One thing about socialism is that we all have to suffer the same. Isn't that great? Real equality.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by projectvxn]

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by projectvxn

Its not just core inflation that's a problem. We already have a shortage of medical professionals in the United States. Toss another 30 million new customers into the system and if you think there's medical cost inflation right now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by Grayelf2009

This bill seems to have been writen by a bunch of flunkies. They are not even sure about the projections, fee figures change everytime you turn around ect ect. All the "right people" are just now coming out of the woodwork to comment on the bill. All standing around like "what it it?".

Its like they just passed a bill that cannot be made tails of by anyone and the best minds are saying its a mess.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:26 PM
How much will actually be spent on healthcare compared to the bureaucracy that will run healthcare?

IMO, the bill is based on speculation, estimation, guesstimate, and expectations. I wonder how one bad year would throw everything off track.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by tdubz

You can gamble...that is your choice.

Just remember...the majority of the costs in a hospital stay is within the first 2-3 days. So if you think you can be approved for that insurance plan within 1 day...go for it. Or else you will be left with a mountain of debt...and no help since you "choose" to not get a plan.

In fact...and I hate to do this because it gives ammo to the anti-health care bill crowd...but I believe in being honest. Blah...anyway...In unintentional side effect of this bill may be that insurance companies may put in large "hold" times before they accept you for a plan. I'll have to look into it...but I don't remember seeing anything about in the bill about insurance companies needing to accept applications within a certain amount of time. So may see a 1,2,3... months wait time between application and acceptance. I'm off to dig through the bill...I'll be back if I find anything...others should go look too.

Since I'm on a roll of dishing out crappy is a scary bit of info...hospitals don't want you to stay in the hospital for much longer than that. They really try to maximize their "throughput"...yes...there are actual positions in hosptials to see how they can maximize that. They pass it off to the public as care the best way to treat a certain case...but it is all to get you out of that hospital as fast as possible...regardless if you are cured. Hospitals care about two numbers...census and would think it would be more like "cure rate", "return rate" and "mortality rate"...but nope. The doctors care about those numbers...but not the hospital administration. Sorry to be all debbie downer...but it seemed a good spot to put it. I had thought about starting a thread on this...but I'm not sure it is really a conspiracy...just a scary tid bit of info.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Grayelf2009

This bill seems to have been writen by a bunch of flunkies.

of course it was written by a bunch of flunkies. Congress wrote it.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Just for the record, this scenario is not something I am planning to do or recommending other people to do. I am just trying to point out another flaw in the bill that hasnt been mentioned already.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by vor78

That may be true in the future but I currently know a number of nurses who for the first time in their careers are having trouble finding and holding onto jobs because with this economy lots of people are simply going without health my state, at least.
I never have heard of job insecurity among health care professionals but it is happening right now. Any other health care professionals who are seeing this too and can confirm?

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by tdubz
Since the insurance companies cant deny me coverage, couldnt I just sign up for coverage while I was sick or hurt, then once Im better, cancel the coverage?

The insurance companies can deny you. If they do they will be fined $100 dollars a day. Now let's say you need a $100,000 surgery. The insurance co. stands to lose less by paying the fine. You can appeal their decision but when your little scheme come to light, who do you think is going to win? Should the insurance company be penalized for your refusal to obtain coverage until you had no choice? I don't think so.

Another thing you need to consider is that the fine for failure to obtain insurance will increase over time, up to 2.5% of your income by 2016. After 2016 the fine will be linked to the CPI.

Bottom line is you need health insurance. Even if you are perfectly healthy, you live just one accident away from regular life long medical expenditures. And besides, not having insurance drives up healthcare costs for everyone else. Get it? Then get it!

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by tdubz

President Øbama and the rest of the 119 Dems, slammed through the bill even though they admit there are flaws to be addressed in what's signed into a Law by Øbama this Tuesday AM.
They all agreed that there will need to be a RECONSILIATION bill
from the Senate that will presumably fix any flaws/delete any errors/reword any fuzzy language... that exists in the HealthCare Reform Law

i say that is highly unlikely, as the bill is already Law, and its nearly impossible to repeal any Law, because a 2/3rds vote will be necessary to do so.

What i want clarified is , using your car accident example, if i have insurance covering motor vehicle injury... why do i need mandantory health coverage?

I also paid for health insurance for the kids while in the classroom & during all school hours... why do they need mandantory health coverage?

at my work, i paid outrageous money for Workman's compensation...
why would i or my employees need mandantory health coverage?

so...I am buying the mandantory health coverage, for the time i'm not driving, and for the time i'm not at work.
I only need the coverage while off-duty or asleep........ hmmmm

will someone tell me that i & you, & all of us, won't be double covering ourselves with medical coverage. Who pays my injury if in a covered auto accident - my expensive insurance policy or the mandated health coverage... i will i collect from both agencies? and keep whats left over after the doctor bills are paid?

My drivers insurance will surely have to be adjusted downward. since every person is mandated to have health & hospital insurance... thus taking away any coverage for the uninsured, and the duplication of payment responsibility - between me, the other driver/ the insurance co/ the health care provider

in another area, i can't wait until the pre-existing condition acceptance provision kicks in, because i'll buy into long term care health insurance

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 05:12 AM
Its now Wednesday the 24th, and finally Yahoo is mong the first to try to explain the Senates' Bill (or part 2 of health care reform) that needs to be signed into Law...or there will be a real slugfest because the Dems & Repubs aren't keeping their 'word' to one another...

Here's a little more of what the 'RECONCILIATION' (re-con-silly-ation) Bill entails...

Senators are debating a package of fixes to the new health law, demanded by House Democrats as their price for passing the mammoth overhaul legislation that will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans over the next decade. Obama signed the bill on Tuesday,
declaring "a new season in America" as he sealed a victory denied to a line of presidents stretching back more than half a century.

The fix-it bill under consideration in the Senate eliminates a special Medicaid deal for Nebraska from the new law, softens a tax on insurance plans that was repugnant to organized labor, sweetens the pot with more expansive subsidies for lower-income people and offers more generous prescription drug coverage to seniors, among other changes.

Its approval at the end of this week is virtually assured, since it's being debated under fast-track budget rules that allow passage with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes usually required for action in the 100-seat Senate. Democrats control 59 Senate seats.

That didn't stop Republicans, who are unanimously opposed, from using the floor debate that began Tuesday afternoon as an opportunity to repeat the accusations they've lobbed at Obama's health legislation for the past year: that it raises taxes, slashes Medicare and includes a burdensome and constitutionally questionable requirement for nearly all Americans
to carry health insurance.

The GOP came up with some new arguments too, including an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that would prohibit sex offenders from getting Viagra prescriptions under federal health programs.


The main suspense surrounding this week's debate is whether the fix-it bill can emerge from the Senate unchanged. If it does, it can go straight to the president for his signature, since it's already passed the House. If the Senate changes it even in a minor way, the legislation would have to go back to the House to be passed again, a prospect House leaders are prepared for but say they don't expect....

well, let's see if there is honor among the fat cat elites, with their own 'Cadillac Healthcare & retirement packages'.... to keep their word on letting the Senate 'fix' the messed up Articles in the now approved ~mandatory~ health-care reform Law.

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 05:42 AM
Here's the catch . . . sure you can play the revolving game of 'sign-up-then-cancel' and the insurance companies cannot deny you insurance, but I'll bet a pretty good pile of coin that there isn't anything in there that says how much they can charge you for being 'high risk'.

Remember . . . it is 'insurance'. Take a look at auto insurance. How much does one pay if they've had a couple of DUIs, several accidents, some speeding tickets and two teenaged kids driving the car as compared to a 45-year-old with an immaculate abstract.

Remember . . . this is INSURANCE and has bupkiss to do with the actual provision of service.

And, even though they cannot deny providing you coverage, I'm wondering what the health care insurance industry will put in each individual contracts in terms of 'riders' for those who have pre-existing conditions.

In fact, I implore upon everyone to read the fine print in their contracts with their insurance providers . . . you may be a tad shocked at some of the limitations in the first two years of coverage.

You'll find that on the surface it may seem that they've put together some shoddy legislation, but upon interpretation, I'll bet most will find themselves getting their eyes screwed out the back of their heads when it comes time to access claims.

This whole notion that the Healthcare Reform Bill is for the betterment of society is a load of horseturd . . . it is an insurance scam written by those who stand to benefit the most from it.

The insurance providers.

top topics


log in