What happens if no one buys health insurance?

[Thunder]

hypothetical scenario...that could take place in some form.

millions of Americans who have no health insurance, decide NOT to buy it.

they pay their $800 or $1,200 yearly penalty.

than, whenever they get very ill or injured, them simply buy health insurance, for the length of time of their injury/ailment.

than, when injury/ailment is cured..they stop paying for health insurance.

this gets repeated as many times as they need..and they do this because now....pre-existing conditions must be covered in full.

what would happen to our health care system, if this is done by millions of Americans who do not have insurance now, and by millions of Americans who DO have it now?

this is a possible scenario that we must think about.

cause honestly, from an economic standpoint, one would save a crapload of money if they only paid for health insurance during the months that they need it..and not pay for it for the other years that they don't.

[BenBurch]

They all are breaking the law and will be fined is what will happen. Its not written into the law, but if you break the law enough, a court can order you to comply with it. And a court can then exact contempt penalties far in excess of the statutory penalty written into the law.

[The True Scotsman]

Most likely you will have to sign a contract for a number of months or years in order to get coverage.

BTW, shouldn't this be in the USA Politics or Economics section of the forum? (I know it says medicine, but I think that is more relating to the science of medicine (sorry, not trying to be a dick)). :D

[Brian-M]

They all are breaking the law and will be fined is what will happen. Its not written into the law, but if you break the law enough, a court can order you to comply with it. And a court can then exact contempt penalties far in excess of the statutory penalty written into the law.


Wait... Are Americans legally required to buy health insurance? :confused:


ETA: Over here, if nobody bought health insurance, the private health insurance companies go broke, and hospitals/doctors who specialize in private health care make less money. On the other hand, more high-income earners end up paying the Medicare surcharge on their income tax, meaning more money available for public health care. Over all, not much difference to the economy or public health.

[BenBurch]

Yes, the new health care reform law requires that everybody without exception buy health insurance.

This is significantly different from what the plurality of Americans actually wanted; 100% single-payer national health care coverage, but Republicans are asshats and were able to force it to suck.

[jasonpatterson]

Yes, the new health care reform law requires that everybody without exception buy health insurance.

This is significantly different from what the plurality of Americans actually wanted; 100% single-payer national health care coverage, but Republicans are asshats and were able to force it to suck.

But that would have turned us all into godless, communist Europeans!

[Schrodinger's Cat]

hypothetical scenario...that could take place in some form.

millions of Americans who have no health insurance, decide NOT to buy it.

they pay their $800 or $1,200 yearly penalty.

than, whenever they get very ill or injured, them simply buy health insurance, for the length of time of their injury/ailment.

than, when injury/ailment is cured..they stop paying for health insurance.

this gets repeated as many times as they need..and they do this because now....pre-existing conditions must be covered in full.

what would happen to our health care system, if this is done by millions of Americans who do not have insurance now, and by millions of Americans who DO have it now?

this is a possible scenario that we must think about.

cause honestly, from an economic standpoint, one would save a crapload of money if they only paid for health insurance during the months that they need it..and not pay for it for the other years that they don't.

This isn't always such a hot idea from the individual's point of view. People do this all the time with Medicaid (I work at a cancer hospital). They may be eligible for medicaid but don't bother actually getting it until they are diagnosed with something serious. Right now with state medicaids, the waiting period can be quite lengthy between the time you apply and the time you are enrolled. In New Hampshire it often takes up to 90 days. If you develop a disease that needs immediate treatment, it may be too late by the time your insurance kicks in.

[casebro]

We'll ALL have go sit on the bench labeled "Group W"!

[BenBurch]

We'll ALL have go sit on the bench labeled "Group W"!

No! Not with the LITTERERS!!!

[Prometheus]

hypothetical scenario...that could take place in some form.

millions of Americans who have no health insurance, decide NOT to buy it.

they pay their $800 or $1,200 yearly penalty.

than, whenever they get very ill or injured, them simply buy health insurance, for the length of time of their injury/ailment.

than, when injury/ailment is cured..they stop paying for health insurance.

this gets repeated as many times as they need..and they do this because now....pre-existing conditions must be covered in full.

what would happen to our health care system, if this is done by millions of Americans who do not have insurance now, and by millions of Americans who DO have it now?

this is a possible scenario that we must think about.

cause honestly, from an economic standpoint, one would save a crapload of money if they only paid for health insurance during the months that they need it..and not pay for it for the other years that they don't.

...then insurance companies would all go broke, and the government would be forced to step in with public coverage that would necessarily become the 100% single-payer system that we could have had in the first place if the Republican Party weren't led by a bunch of asshats.

[Brian-M]

Just reading up on health care reform in the United States. I'm amazed at how messed-up the health care system is over there.

In 62% of all personal bankruptcy in the United States, medical debt is cited as a factor, the biggest single factor of all. This rarely occurs in other countries in the developed world. The United States spends a greater portion of total yearly income in the nation on health care than any United Nations member state except for East Timor (Timor-Leste), although the actual use of health care services in the U.S., by most measures of health services use, is below the median among the world's developed countries.

According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage".


In fact, government health care spending in the United States is consistently greater, as a portion of GDP, than in Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and Japan (countries that have predominantly public health care). And an even larger portion is paid by private insurance and individuals themselves.


A study of international health care spending levels in the year 2000, published in the health policy journal Health Affairs, found that while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median. The authors of the study concluded that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.


The Pacific Research Institute, a conservative think tank, argues that the uninsured subsidize the insured, do not drive up the cost of health care, and use fewer services than the insured. A 2004 editorial in USA Today asserted that United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data show the uninsured are unfairly billed for services at rates far higher — on average 305% at urban hospitals in California — than are the insured; USA Today concluded that "millions of [uninsured patients] are forced to subsidize insured patients."


It's appalling.

[Prometheus]

Just reading up on health care reform in the United States. I'm amazed at how messed-up the health care system is over there.

It's appalling.

Yeah, but our super-models can get boob jobs with no waiting. :rolleyes:

[kellyb]

Just reading up on health care reform in the United States. I'm amazed at how messed-up the health care system is over there.

It's appalling.

It is.

[BenBurch]

Yeah, but our super-models can get boob jobs with no waiting. :rolleyes:

Well, at least there is an upside! ;)

[Ziggurat]

They all are breaking the law and will be fined is what will happen.

Under current legislation, no, they aren't breaking the law. They will merely be assessed a tax (not a fine) if they do not.

Its not written into the law, but if you break the law enough, a court can order you to comply with it.

Except that not buying insurance isn't illegal under the current bill.

And a court can then exact contempt penalties far in excess of the statutory penalty written into the law.

Except it's not a penalty, it's a tax.

So no, courts couldn't do anything.

[kellyb]

This should go in the politics forum, but to answer the OP...
You're right; this is a bad plan. If I were a little more tin-foil-hatty (err...optimistically tin-foil-hatty) I'd almost wonder if this was a carefully orchestrated and planned "crash and burn" to bring about single payer.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, the new health care reform law requires that everybody without exception buy health insurance.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of exceptions.

[casebro]

Nothing means anything until the SCOTUS says it means something. Like the "not a fine, a tax".

And the whole thing is supposed to take four years to get up to speed. Plenty of time to figure out how to legally do the deed. Or vote the libs out, and get it straightened out.

[BobTheDonkey]

Nothing means anything until the SCOTUS says it means something. Like the "not a fine, a tax".

And the whole thing is supposed to take four years to get up to speed. Plenty of time to figure out how to legally do the deed. Or vote the libs out, and get it straightened out.

Weren't the Conservatives the ones to suggest a similar scheme in the 90's?


;)

[Modified]

Why not just allow pre-existing condition exceptions for people who have been uninsured for more than three months, or something like that?

[kellyb]

Why not just allow pre-existing condition exceptions for people who have been uninsured for more than three months, or something like that?

How would that help?

[Accidental Martyr]

Nothing means anything until the SCOTUS says it means something. Like the "not a fine, a tax".

And the whole thing is supposed to take four years to get up to speed. Plenty of time to figure out how to legally do the deed. Or vote the libs out, and get it straightened out.

So, how will the right-wingers straighten it out?

[Ziggurat]

Nothing means anything until the SCOTUS says it means something. Like the "not a fine, a tax".

The bill calls it a tax, and it's assessed and collected by the IRS. It's a tax. While it's conceivable the SCOTUS might weigh in on its constitutionality, the question of tax vs. fine isn't going to come up, because it's definitely a tax.

[BobTheDonkey]

The bill calls it a tax, and it's assessed and collected by the IRS. It's a tax. While it's conceivable the SCOTUS might weigh in on its constitutionality, the question of tax vs. fine isn't going to come up, because it's definitely a tax.

So, does that mean my medicare taxes are unconstitutional?

[Ziggurat]

So, does that mean my medicare taxes are unconstitutional?

No. The possible issues with the constitutionality of this particular tax do not apply to medicare taxes. But this is getting off topic.

[Modified]

How would that help?

If it helps now, it should help then. That is, it should encourage people to be insured. I would be fine with a requirement for continuous insurance to avoid being subject to the exception, if getting reasonable insurance was easy and quick no matter the situation, but some allowed lapse would probably be helpful.

[Hellbound]

Off-topic:

A better idea might be to make sure that, while pre-existing conditions have to be covered, the insurance provider can refuse to cover them fo rthe first, say, three months of insurance coverage (meaning that a [person who wanted to get them covered would have to get and maintain their insurance to avoid the penalty period).

[Dave Rogers]

The bill calls it a tax, and it's assessed and collected by the IRS. It's a tax. While it's conceivable the SCOTUS might weigh in on its constitutionality, the question of tax vs. fine isn't going to come up, because it's definitely a tax.

So, if nobody bought health insurance, everybody would have to pay the tax, and you'd have a tax funded health system. And if most people didn't buy health insurance, you'd have a tax funded health system with an opt-out clause for those who want a higher level of care and are prepared to pay for it. Now what does that remind me of?

Dave

[BobTheDonkey]

So, if nobody bought health insurance, everybody would have to pay the tax, and you'd have a tax funded health system. And if most people didn't buy health insurance, you'd have a tax funded health system with an opt-out clause for those who want a higher level of care and are prepared to pay for it. Now what does that remind me of?

Dave

Oooh!

Oooh!


Pick me! I think I know this one!



NHS?

[Malerin]

No it doesn't. There are plenty of exceptions.

I'm pretty sure there's an exception based on religion.

[Cycledoc]

That's the American way! Game the system and find a way for someone else to pay for your needed services. It's a variation on the the republican health care plan which features "free" emergency room care.

Now if we could only find a way for someone else to pay for our wars.

www.medicynic.com