Any particular reason that you chose to be uncivil with me? That quote was to a poster who just posted that I was wrong and I asked him to respond to me. A basic concept that is important to everyone when they buy anything is what is it going to cost and nobody seems to be able to answer that.
I'm assuming the rates will be similar for both private and public. I'm also assuming that whether or not their is a subsidy (which there doesn't seem to be a concensus here) that people on the public option will pay much more out of pocket for their monthly premiums than those with private insurance through their company. I think a lot of people think the public option payments will be very similar to what folks with company subsidized insurance pay. I know people who b**** about paying the 100 dollars out of pocket now.
I shouldn't have to say this but thanks for a civil response. The same goes for bucket and ottamon. I'm talking about the speculation that healthcare coverage will be mandated for everyone. I'm talking about applying that to someone who works for a small company that does not provide healthcare insurance and they want to sign up for the public option and get coverage. My brother and 2 of my best friends fall in this category. Please feel free to eloborate on any of the scenarios that you proposed or any that you feel are need to be considered.
See? This is why you are full of ****. If you truly wanted to know this information (as Major has said) you would know it. It's fairly basic information for all to see.
Well, there is no real difference between someone choosing the public option or a private option in this scenario. You will have the choice between private insurance plans that are available now, and an additional public option that would be made available (if it is included in the final legislation). The cost for each should be pretty similar. If you are eligible for the subsidies, then you would be eligible for them regardless of whether you chose a private insurance plan or the public plan. As to the actual costs, it depends on your numbers (which you've given already) and what gets passed. Since there are very different bills out there, it's hard to give an estimate on what it actually would be. if I had time right now (I don't - I'm going home from work in a minute) then I'd look up the summary of the house bill to try to give you an estimate. You can also take a look yourself (I'd use this PDF), although even that short summary is a lot to wade through.
Then why don't you tell me what a family of 4 without access to healthcare insurance earning 100k would pay in monthly premiums under the public option. If you truly wanted to know it.....you would know it.... Is that a Ron Burgundy line from Anchorman?
A quick look at that PDF suggests somewhere around $88,000 a year. My quick look also suggests that the fee for not getting insurance for someone making $100,000 would be about $2000 a year or the average premium in the exchange, whichever is lower. I didn't look closely, though, so that could be way off.
Using the insurance costs I (and the company I work for) currently pay and assuming that someone won't qualify for a subsidy (government or company)the monthly premiums I gave are not out of line Is that a fair statement?
Jesus dude. Do your own ****ing research and quit being a prick. Nobody here wants to waste time answering questions you have no desire to actually see answered. In short, **** off.
I see you're still bitter about getting punked.... I do want to see the answers. I haven't been running around 1 way or the other on the public option. I just thought since you guys were a broken record on the subject that you would know the answers yourself. uolj has done a nice job of debating the subject. You on the other hand are stinging from an asswhipping...
If 88K is the number for a couple and that represents the highest tier. That would mean your premium would be 12 percent of your income. That would be 10,560 per year. That would be a 880 per month premium with a 10,000 out of pocket cap. If I'm wrong, correct me.
I'm also surprised that athletes aren't coming out in droves against this. They will have to pay a surcharge of 5.4% of their adjusted gross income. If a player's adjusted gross income is 10 mil, he is paying 540 grand a year.
Another insult instead of a credible response. I was referring to the "surcharge" they would have to pay to finance this.... You have been one of the biggest supporters of the public option on this forum and you don't have a damn clue about any of it. Correct me if the 880 per month was wrong based on the 88K uolj gave or you can just keep giving spastic idiotic responses.
Well, it is obvious that you can't. You should do all the liberals on the board a favor and just shut up. There are some pretty sharp debaters among the libs and conservatives here. You just aren't one of them.
Considering the inclusion of a public option is still in debate I don't think hard numbers have come out as cleanly as you would like. I follow the debate fairly closely but I haven't seen that level of detail. Perhaps copies of the proposed bills are online that would give you the answer you seek? Cost aside the problem with not having a public option is if you attempt to get a private plan you may argue that costs are not too bad. However what would happen to your premiums if you got sick, developed diabetes, cancer, etc.? Your premiums would jump to the point where you might as well pay cash for your treatments. A public option would create the safety of a employer based group plan without needing to be at a job. Many would benefit form such an option including the self employed and small business owners.
Yes. You came here with a "question" but then went off on topics unrelated to the question regarding the "bottom line" on a topic that you're apparently not very informed about. If you had an honest question, you would simply have asked instead of taking that attitude. If you wanted to have a private conversation with only one person, why do it on a public message board. That's because no one can predict insurance prices four years out - private or public. It has nothing to do with the public option. That will be market-driven, so it's not possible to predict that price today.
Probably so - in theory, the public should be lower quality but also cheaper insurance, but that remains to be seen. There is a subsidy. How much will depend on the person's income. That will also determine how much (if anything) the individual pays. For some people with high incomes, it will almost certainly be more. For poor people, it will probably be less. Right now, the rest of the public subsidizes those people when they get sick. In this system, we wouldn't.
