Will you drop your health insurance now?

[The Rambam]

The more people opt out of the private health care system and into the government system, the faster the private system will fail and the sooner we will be in a single-payer universal coverage system. Beautiful.

[byu71]

The more people opt out of the private health care system and into the government system, the faster the private system will fail and the sooner we will be in a single-payer universal coverage system. Beautiful.

That may be true, but I am not going to be the guy not gaming the system out of some sense of "sticking to my principles". Sticking to principles is way over rated.

[Clark Addison]

So after you pay the penalty, are you enrolled in a government-sponsored plan, or something else? If you use your insurance multiple times a year, is there any possible benefit of dropping your plan? I wouldn't think so, but I am far from an expert. If so, I would think this would prevent a whole lot of folks from "gaming" the system.

[Indy Coug]

So after you pay the penalty, are you enrolled in a government-sponsored plan, or something else? If you use your insurance multiple times a year, is there any possible benefit of dropping your plan? I wouldn't think so, but I am far from an expert. If so, I would think this would prevent a whole lot of folks from "gaming" the system.

It would be no different than a high deductible insurance plan is now. I pay more now than the 2014 penalty for a HDHP where we've had at least a dozen doctor visits this year and haven't yet exhausted our deductible.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

So after you pay the penalty, are you enrolled in a government-sponsored plan, or something else? If you use your insurance multiple times a year, is there any possible benefit of dropping your plan? I wouldn't think so, but I am far from an expert. If so, I would think this would prevent a whole lot of folks from "gaming" the system.

The majority decision calls it a tax and seems to make it clear that people have the choice of either paying the tax or getting health insurance.

The end result is this -- the rational decision maker who is healthy will just not buy insurance until they absolutely need it. But if people who absolutely needed insurance are the only ones who buy it, the insurance companies will fail.

Obamacare requires that companies with over 50 employees either pay for health insurance or pay a $2000 fine per employee. That $2000 fine will be cheaper in many, if not most cases especially after costs spike when people that are not employed with a company with over 50 employees just simply choose to pay $600 a year to the government. Insurance companies are going to get killed by this.

It's a truly horrific piece of legislation. The interesting thing about the Roberts decision is that it seems to spotlight just how awful it is. Awful, but still constitutional -- there's a campaign slogan for you.

[Uncle Ted]

The more people opt out of the private health care system and into the government system, the faster the private system will fail and the sooner we will be in a single-payer universal coverage system. Beautiful.

Barney Frank? Is that you?

[YOUTUBE]QLm9t9j-qKM[/YOUTUBE]

[Tim]

The majority decision calls it a tax and seems to make it clear that people have the choice of either paying the tax or getting health insurance.

The end result is this -- the rational decision maker who is healthy will just not buy insurance until they absolutely need it. But if people who absolutely needed insurance are the only ones who buy it, the insurance companies will fail.

Obamacare requires that companies with over 50 employees either pay for health insurance or pay a $2000 fine per employee. That $2000 fine will be cheaper in many, if not most cases especially after costs spike when people that are not employed with a company with over 50 employees just simply choose to pay $600 a year to the government. Insurance companies are going to get killed by this.

It's a truly horrific piece of legislation. The interesting thing about the Roberts decision is that it seems to spotlight just how awful it is. Awful, but still constitutional -- there's a campaign slogan for you.

There's that $600 number again. After the first two years it's $2085 minimum.

[Jacob]

There's that $600 number again. After the first two years it's $2085 minimum.

That's for a family, right?

[kccougar]

There's that $600 number again. After the first two years it's $2085 minimum.

Still a bargain.

[Indy Coug]

Still a bargain.

It's a slap on the wrists.

[Ma'ake]

Interesting...

If the insurance industry feels threatened by too many people taking the penalty, perhaps they'll pressure Congress to boost the penalties?

Under the new game rules, that would seem to make sense, wouldn't it?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Isn't part of the deal that if you go onto the gubmint plan you are stuck on it? i.e. if you leave your private insurance you can not go back? That was part of the original law but I can't recall if it made it to the final.

If so, this is absolutely the death of private insurance companies. Those with the moxy to survive will essentially become Non-Government Entities.

FWIW, the penalty under Romneycare in Massachusetts was $1500/employee. Many companies simply dropped the coverage and paid the fee as it was a great savings over providing full coverage. And the people who were dropped were put into the state pool. And great was the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth thereof.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I answered 'no' because I want to see how it plays out. I think this ability to 'game the system' is a loophole that must be closed somehow before it goes into effect.

[Blueintheface]

Every time I think I have a handle on this I take 2 steps back.

[Indy Coug]

A penalty would consist of a punishment that costs more than the correct behavior. To call it a penalty is intellectually insulting.