Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, but you really don't want to mess up your life with medical debt and then a bankruptcy....not only will you not get credit for 10 years, your insurance rates (auto, home) will skyrocket, if you can even get it, getting an auto or home loan is next to impossible and if you do, you will end up paying more in interest then your medical premiums will cost...same with the home/auto insurance, etc.
Well, the bronze plans are essentially catastrophic health insurance. A person can still rack up thousands in debt, even with this coverage. So a young person who has a bronze plan isn't indemnified from bankruptcy, bad credit, etc just b/c they have health insurance.
Now, I have sought out catastrophic plans for the last 20 years, so I am not decrying that this is a bad idea. For me, it was sensible - pay for healthcare out of pocket (I never met the deductible), lower cost of premiums.
I mention this, though, as many people (not necessarily you, golfgal, but others reading on this forum) sometimes think that having healthcare insurance means "coverage" and so no worries about ending up after a car accident, for example, with $20K (or even $5K) of bills due to hospitals, physicians, etc.
Just because one has a bare bones policy - this does not mean they will avoid medical debt.
Well, the bronze plans are essentially catastrophic health insurance. A person can still rack up thousands in debt, even with this coverage. So a young person who has a bronze plan isn't indemnified from bankruptcy, bad credit, etc just b/c they have health insurance.
Now, I have sought out catastrophic plans for the last 20 years, so I am not decrying that this is a bad idea. For me, it was sensible - pay for healthcare out of pocket (I never met the deductible), lower cost of premiums.
I mention this, though, as many people (not necessarily you, golfgal, but others reading on this forum) sometimes think that having healthcare insurance means "coverage" and so no worries about ending up after a car accident, for example, with $20K (or even $5K) of bills due to hospitals, physicians, etc.
Just because one has a bare bones policy - this does not mean they will avoid medical debt.
There is a cap on out of pocket maximum of $12,700 so that is THE MOST you will spend in a plan year for billed charges. If you are in a car accident and you don't have $20,000 of coverage in your auto policy, buy more....that isn't even state miniumum so it's not a good example. Your health plan would not be primary in this situation.
Do the math on the policies. The premium difference is not going to add up to 12K so if you don't have the money to pay your out of pocket, either find a way to save for that or get a policy with lower out of pocket costs. Part of why Health Savings Accounts were created is for this exact example, someone that is a low user of their plan but wants to save, TAX FREE, for the "what if's". Put that money away a little at a time and over the next few years build up that account so you HAVE the money to pay that if needed. Take the difference in premiums to start and put those funds into an HSA--assuming you took a tax qualified health plan.
SO HERE'S THE QUESTION: If I were an 18 to 30 year old and the ACA was just being implemented, why should I not just pay the low annual penalty rather than the higher health premium and when I was injured, I could then enroll? Are there any waiting periods or penalties for doing that?
According to a close friend who works for WIC (women infant children, a welfare program) they were educated on the ACA. And she says there will be a penalty for "waiting" until you need it vs enrolling beforehand
There is a cap on out of pocket maximum of $12,700 so that is THE MOST you will spend in a plan year for billed charges. If you are in a car accident and you don't have $20,000 of coverage in your auto policy, buy more....that isn't even state miniumum so it's not a good example. Your health plan would not be primary in this situation.
Do the math on the policies. The premium difference is not going to add up to 12K so if you don't have the money to pay your out of pocket, either find a way to save for that or get a policy with lower out of pocket costs. Part of why Health Savings Accounts were created is for this exact example, someone that is a low user of their plan but wants to save, TAX FREE, for the "what if's". Put that money away a little at a time and over the next few years build up that account so you HAVE the money to pay that if needed. Take the difference in premiums to start and put those funds into an HSA--assuming you took a tax qualified health plan.
Like I said, maybe YOU have it all figured out for YOUR situation but not everyone is going to have a HSA and not everyone is going to be able to afford to pay for healthcare when there is a high deductible.
Many folks are underemployed or in a lot of debt at a young age and don't have the extra resources to plan for anything.
Not trying to argue with you. Just saying that because a person has healthcare insurance, it doesn't mean they are going to be indemnified from medical debt, nor does it mean they will have more access to healthcare, if the deductible is high and the copay is either a very small percentage or non-existent. And many of these plans only pay a portion for drugs, as well.
When an insurance policy is essentially catastrophic insurance (high deductible)- and that is basically what the cheapest ACA policies are - then it is not very helpful except to help offset large medical debt.
And maybe you were wealthy at 27, but for me, $12,700 would have been an insurmountable amount of money out of pocket. You threw that figure around like it was $12.70, lol.
The unemployed and poor won't have to pay much for healthcare, that's the POINT.
People who have jobs and a little money and have to pay market rates have more to loose by not having insurance, and are the ones who will hesitate the most. They are used to having some disposable income to play with and more likely to be damaged by a bankruptcy.
Men of that age group are at high risk for Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
So yes,I would say just buy the health insurance.
Also,men of that age are at high risk of accidents.
I know most are always thinking about physical illness,but what about mental illness?
Mental illnesses costs lots of money.
Good point about mental illness. The behavioral mental health folks are hoping ACA will provide better access to mental healthcare treatment. This is a very positive aspect of forcing insurance on the population and I hope it will mean more treatment for mental health consumers.
The unemployed and poor won't have to pay much for healthcare, that's the POINT.
People who have jobs and a little money and have to pay market rates have more to loose by not having insurance, and are the ones who will hesitate the most. They are used to having some disposable income to play with and more likely to be damaged by a bankruptcy.
The unemployed (without assets) and poor already have access to healthcare through Medicaid. And they will continue to have that same (actually, expanded by 400% income threshold) access.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
