Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (41400)	3/10/2017 1:42:26 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42652

Under the American Health Care Act, there is no tax penalty but individuals who’s insurance lapses can be charged a 30% premium over regular rates. A 30% premium rate hike sounds stiff. However, if you are sick and have cancer for instance, a 30% premium hike is small potatoes compared to the actual cost of treatment. On the other hand, for healthy people, a 30% rate increase may drive them away from having insurance. Thus, the non-mandate–even with the 30% penalty–may lead to a adverse selection death spiral whereby only sick people purchase insurance and premiums rise dramatically. What do you think. I was assuming that it would do the opposite, keep people enrolled from year to year to avoid paying the higher rate. One of the reasons I have had Medicare Part B for ten years despite not getting much out of it was because, in case I changed my mind alter on, the penalty would be prohibitive. This penalty is not very steep so maybe that's the difference. What do you think? Would the penalty encourage people to maintain coverage or not?