Mandates, subsidies, show me your poverty... Prove you need it

SoCalDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-19-09 09:40 AM
Original message

Mandates, subsidies, show me your poverty... Prove you need it

Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 09:44 AM by SoCalDem

If the eventual bill requires everyone to "show proof of insurance", it really just means that a whole new level of scrutiny has been introduced into society, and the fact that the "fessing-up" will come via the IRS, makes it even more onerous.

Here's why:

In civilized nations, they have embraced the "macro" sensibility toward their health-care mandate. Whatever the cost to the nation, for health care, is, it's levied on the population via a progressive taxation system, and paid though taxes withheld from their salaries. No muss, no fuss. Their lives remain the same...no frantic phone calling, or internet surfing, looking for a "deal"..no fine print to wade through. When they go to a doctor, they do not fear rejection because that particular doctor does not "take" their insurance plan. They do not fear the mailman, who may be bringing them bills for "services not covered".

The macro approach, also gives an amount of dignity to the poor, since they receive their care the same way they have always gotten it...through the local service organization .... they have already proved they are poor, so any new service that comes along, probably automatically includes them.

The micro- approach we seem to be embracing , naturally pits people against each other, since we will still be using a monopolistic private system, and at every step of the way, we must "prove" we are worthy.

Insurance companies are used to reaping HUGE profits, and any government rules that might cut into those profits, will be met with a new level of devious tactics. Their sudden focus on "wellness" is going to turn out to be a witch-hunt of sorts, to help them weed out the undesirables ... the diabetics, the overweight, the smokers, drinkers, the ones with high cholesterol, the 45-64 yr olds who are going to be "costly".

When 300 million are covered , it's a LOT harder to focus in on the "bad" ones, and to pit them against the "good" ones, so the bad ones can be blamed for the expense.

The "subsidy", too is likely to be a "tax-credit", and not a real subsidy, via reduced monthly-payment, and you can bet that to qualify, you will have many flaming hoops to jump through. The subsidy (as far as I've been able to discern) depends on where you live+ your income..I can see many nightmarish calculations ahead for LOTS of people. What if you work in State "A", and you qualify, but then you move to State "B", where you do NOT? A CNN newsette gave an "example" last week, of a guy with a wife & two kids, whose subsidy would be $700........not per month... for the year, via a tax credit.. $58.33 a month is not likely to be the amount that's keeping them from having insurance.

For most people, who want decent insurance, you're looking at the equivalent of adding 2-3 car payments to a budget.. How many people can afford that?

You can also bet there will be a lot more paperwork ahead, just to claim a subsidy..and when you try to GET a subsidy, it will probably end up a lot like a trip to the principal's office, where you sit down and show them all your finances, and prove to them that you really cannot afford the premiums.

Count on a lot of "counseling", from the ones doling out the subsidy..counseling that may tell you that you are not spending your money wisely, and need to stop doing this or that. The privacy-freaks will have meltdowns.

The macro approach, via a static assessment for each person, based on their income, and withheld through paychecks, without the invasive scrutiny seems to be a better way. The people who want supplemental coverage for the "gaps", can subject themselves to the actuarial/nitpicky scrutiny.