How Many Will Be Uninsured?

So what's your guess? When the ACA is rolling at full speed, after all the delays and exemptions forced by the king, how many people do you predict will be uninsured? What would you do if you were 27 and in good health... pay the fine, or pay the premium? I was going to put up a poll but there would have to be too many choices. So give me your best guess.

Mine is anywhere between 30-50 million at any one time.

Or maybe you don't want to guess because you think it just doesn't matter. I welcome that conversation as well.

I can't really guess on it since I have no clue.

But I'll post a few numbers to consider for your example of a 27 year old and I think it depends a lot on how much income that 27 year old makes.

We don't know yet just what the Obamacare premiums will be, but many (including factcheck.org) use this calculator which is just an estimate at this point, and it applies to individual insurance...

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

Based on the calculator, a 27 year old making $17,000 would only have a yearly health care premium of $660 ($55/month) which is a bargain since it would be heavily subsidized (the government, I mean the higher income Obamacare payers, would pay 79% of it through subsidies).

If the 27 year old doesn't want coverage, for 2014 there would be a $95 or 1% income tax fine, whichever is greater. In this case the fine would be $170. But there is no provision in the law to enforce it unless you have a refund coming that the IRS could keep. In 2016 it would be a tax fine of $695 or 2.5%, and in this case it would be $695. So it's a no-brainer to get the insurance for $660 instead (assuming the IRS can get that $695).

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/louie-gohmerts-health-care-hooey/

But if the 27 year old is "rich" and makes a "huge" $34,000, things are a lot different. Now there is no government subsidy and this person pays $3163 a year, which is 9.38% of income and comes to $264 per month. That is a very high premium for a 27 year old, especially considering the policy has a terrible $6350 max out of pocket expense on top of the $3163 premium.

In this case, opting out would cost $340 in IRS penalties for 2014, and $850 in 2016. Again, we assume the IRS could even collect them. If it were me, I'd probably still get the way over priced insurance since that's just me, though it depends on if I had other unexpected expenses as well. But I think most would make a different choice at age 27 (if healthy) when facing a $3163 premium vs. a $850 IRS penalty (or no penalty at all).

Rick wrote: So what's your guess? When the ACA is rolling at full speed, after all the delays and exemptions forced by the king, how many people do you predict will be uninsured? What would you do if you were 27 and in good health... pay the fine, or pay the premium? I was going to put up a poll but there would have to be too many choices. So give me your best guess.

Mine is anywhere between 30-50 million at any one time.

Or maybe you don't want to guess because you think it just doesn't matter. I welcome that conversation as well.

1. Your post still focuses on the proposed means to the end, not the end. How many will have their health concerns and needs taken care of.....very different answer and matters more?

2. How much less will the same level of care be in the future...so that it is more affordable?

3. Again, those that focus on insurance are missing the point unless they are ready to discuss what is included in each policy of each group or person they mention. Insurances are far from the same and are not necc. inclusive of what you need. Just to say people have insurance is pretty useless and carries very little meaning outside of politics.

4. Can you clearly lay out the fines and the typical premiums, otherwise you are like a convenience store that does not put prices on the items....thus no one can make a quality purchase choice.

5. FYI, many young folks in MA pay the fine, go on public assistance and/or just move on. Implied in your answer is that people will make some kind of evaluation and make the best choice. This is not how it works....people are going to just keep doing what they were doing until the fine become so large that they feel it in ADVANCE. Many in Mass were surprised to find out that when they had crappy coverage for just a couple months out of the year, they avoided the fine anyway.

6. Again, the goal of the administration is that you can pay your insurance bills, not that you get better care. This is a money grab for the insurance companies and even threads like this prop this process up. Let's talk about measurements that matter relative to the pure goal. More people healthier and living longer, the poorest getting care but paying for it personally (everyone in right, no freeloaders right - you know freeloaders if you sent your kids through public school and did not pay for it fully, you freeloaded just like those we are trying to address in the health care system, those that just take advantage of free govt services even though they have some $). As long as people measure this by how many people have some generic form of a product called insurance...I would call them Obamafiles.

Rick, I did not know you supported this program, posting about measuring insurance implies you do, as you are marketing for the propaganda even in the way you are trying to discount it.

on that note wrote:

Rick wrote: Rick, I did not know you supported this program, posting about measuring insurance implies you do, as you are marketing for the propaganda even in the way you are trying to discount it.

No I don't support it. Merely asking a question and giving my opinion. We were told this law would ensure that everyone had healthcare, that premiums would go down, that you can keep your doctor, that you can keep your plan. I say BS x 4

This law depends on young healthy people to subsidize the care of the sick and elderly. If far fewer people decide to pay the premiums than expected, what then? This law isn't even fully implemented yet and there seems to be a weekly cluster***k rising to the surface. Just wait until the issues are complicated by long waits and limited choices and coverage. (my opinion)

Rick wrote:

on that note wrote:

Rick wrote: Rick, I did not know you supported this program, posting about measuring insurance implies you do, as you are marketing for the propaganda even in the way you are trying to discount it.

No I don't support it. Merely asking a question and giving my opinion. We were told this law would ensure that everyone had healthcare, that premiums would go down, that you can keep your doctor, that you can keep your plan. I say BS x 4

This law depends on young healthy people to subsidize the care of the sick and elderly. If far fewer people decide to pay the premiums than expected, what then? This law isn't even fully implemented yet and there seems to be a weekly cluster***k rising to the surface. Just wait until the issues are complicated by long waits and limited choices and coverage. (my opinion)

Do you have a source for your claim that we were told that this law would ensure that everyone would have healthcare....Also....."this law" has little to do with the elderly.....they are on medicare....though it would be nice if the rest of the population had a medicare-like program, then maybe we could claim that at least most of the population would have healthcare....but that idea was a non-starter with congress.

This law was designed to make affordable health insurance available to the US population that did not currently have insurance....no one said it would ENSURE that EVERYONE would have insurance. Only single payer, universal healthcare would do that....is that what you are advocating for? If you are talk to your conservative party and friends......

Archer I am only giving my opinions on what I see as a disaster coming our way. You are free to disagree and down the raod, we shall see who was right. If you believed this law would only cost 900 billion, then you are probably shocked that the updated cost is almost three times that much. If you believed that ACA will make premiums more affordable, then you may be shocked when (imo) premiums will actually go up faster. That goes the same for choices and service which I believe will be worse.
If this law was intended to destroy the current system instead of making it better, then the law created will be a success. If it really was intended to make HC more affordable, more efficient, and to leave everbody covered, then I believe it will be an epic failure and a reflection of those who created it.

I do have a question I haven't been able to find a clear answer to... If a person decides to pay the fine/tax, what happens if he then gets sick? What is the process for him to then get covered asap?

I do have a question I haven't been able to find a clear answer to... If a person decides to pay the fine/tax, what happens if he then gets sick? What is the process for him to then get covered asap?

Seriously, anyone know this answer?

Rick wrote:

I do have a question I haven't been able to find a clear answer to... If a person decides to pay the fine/tax, what happens if he then gets sick? What is the process for him to then get covered asap?

Seriously, anyone know this answer?

I answered this in another thread.

There is a yearly open enrollment period from Oct 1 to Dec 7 (extended one time to Mar 1 in 2014). If you get sick outside that period you can't get insurance. I think there is a 90 day wait time too, but not sure.

So the penalty only applies if someone files taxes, right?

ComputerBreath wrote: So the penalty only applies if someone files taxes, right?

Pretty much, assuming you are not required to file taxes because your income is below the minimum threshold for filing taxes..

Here are the ways to avoid the penalty:

1.Religious conscience: You are a member of a religious sect that is recognized as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration administers the process for recognizing these sects according to the criteria in the law.

2.Health care sharing ministry: You are a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry.

3.Indian tribes: You are a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe.

4.No filing requirement: Your household income is below the minimum threshold for filing a tax return. The requirement to file a federal tax return depends on your filing status, age, and types and amounts of income. To find out if you are required to file a federal tax return, use the IRS Interactive Tax Assistant (ITA).

5.Short coverage gap: You went without coverage for less than three consecutive months during the year. For more information see question 22.

6.Hardship: A Health Insurance Marketplace, also known as an Affordable Insurance Exchange, has certified that you have suffered a hardship that makes you unable to obtain coverage.

7.Unaffordable coverage options: You can’t afford coverage because the minimum amount you must pay for the premiums is more than eight percent of your household income.

8.Incarceration: You are in a jail, prison, or similar penal institution or correctional facility after the disposition of charges against you.

9.Not lawfully present: You are neither a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, nor an alien lawfully present in the U.S.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision

And as has been mentioned before, if you don't get insurance and owe a tax penalty, the only way the IRS has to enforce that penalty is to withhold it from any refund due to you.