A study by researchers at the Brown University School of Public Health found that avoidable mortality rose across all U.S. states from 2009 to 2021, while it declined in most other high-income countries.
“Wildcards, sometimes you need to see people and have no idea what you will pay in the end since sometimes they will do work or use something that isn’t fully covered so you then get a bill a month later telling you insurance only covered this you owe the difference. It’s up to you to figure out if that’s correct or not then go down the path of fighting it.”
This alone would get my hackles up, let alone paying $600+/month for uncertain coverage of treatments and prescriptions. Moreso, it would rub me the wrong way to have someone in my life who was unable to pay in and left up the creek with no paddle. The bit about a tax penalty for absence of coverage is a bit much, does the government really need to kick someone when they’re down? Best of luck to you, it sounds as though you have it well in hand, but I don’t envy you the task.
I hope you realize what he is talking about every single American deals with and I think you missed the part where he is fortunate and this is literally the best case scenario (outside of being rich enough to not give af.)
I do, yes. I’ve read reams and reams of accounts, comments, and articles about the hardships experienced under the current healthcare model in America over the past few decades. The exact costing metric was never addressed though, which is why I asked about it specifically. The whole enterprise of for-profit medicine as carried out under the current insurance model is criminal and immoral by any measure.
The bit about a tax penalty for absence of coverage is a bit much, does the government really need to kick someone when they’re down?
This was struck down in court years ago.
The “stick” was to encourage people to get coverage ahead of time or face the penalty. If they decided not to, the extra tax could help cover unpaid ER visits where they must be treated whether or not they can pay.
The “carrot” At the same time was reduced price insurance based on your income and expanded Medicaid coverage for people who couldn’t afford anything. This was paid for by the federal government but Medicaid is administered by the state: several Repugnancan states refused the money because their politicians were so set against providing free medical care
After the tax “stick” was struck down, coverage dropped without that penalty, and states where they refused the money left millions of lesser paid people without coverage . So yeah, we needed it
This alone would get my hackles up, let alone paying $600+/month for uncertain coverage of treatments and prescriptions. Moreso, it would rub me the wrong way to have someone in my life who was unable to pay in and left up the creek with no paddle. The bit about a tax penalty for absence of coverage is a bit much, does the government really need to kick someone when they’re down? Best of luck to you, it sounds as though you have it well in hand, but I don’t envy you the task.
I hope you realize what he is talking about every single American deals with and I think you missed the part where he is fortunate and this is literally the best case scenario (outside of being rich enough to not give af.)
I do, yes. I’ve read reams and reams of accounts, comments, and articles about the hardships experienced under the current healthcare model in America over the past few decades. The exact costing metric was never addressed though, which is why I asked about it specifically. The whole enterprise of for-profit medicine as carried out under the current insurance model is criminal and immoral by any measure.
This was struck down in court years ago.
The “stick” was to encourage people to get coverage ahead of time or face the penalty. If they decided not to, the extra tax could help cover unpaid ER visits where they must be treated whether or not they can pay.
The “carrot” At the same time was reduced price insurance based on your income and expanded Medicaid coverage for people who couldn’t afford anything. This was paid for by the federal government but Medicaid is administered by the state: several Repugnancan states refused the money because their politicians were so set against providing free medical care
After the tax “stick” was struck down, coverage dropped without that penalty, and states where they refused the money left millions of lesser paid people without coverage . So yeah, we needed it