US Health Care Reform and Expats

SaraSara

Registered
StevePalermo said:
Can anyone believing this please give us your definition of a socialist? As a european who knows a lot of genuine socialists, you guys from the US must have a different definition of the word than the rest of us!
No wonder you are puzzled - NewsBusters is extremely anti-liberal - anyone even slightly to the left of Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh is considered a Socialist.

It pays to check the source of articles posted.

This from Wikipedia:
"NewsBusters is styled as a rapid-response site that contains posts by MRC editors to selected stories in mass media. Although the site is advertised chiefly as a conservative site, it frequently defends Neoconservatives as well. Not only does the site highlight journalists it deems to be liberally biased, but also non-journalists (writers, musicians, producers, scientists, etc.) who have a perceived liberal viewpoint. The site is also highly critical of bipartisan Republicans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center
 

steveinbsas

Registered
StevePalermo said:
Can anyone believing this please give us your definition of a socialist? As a european who knows a lot of genuine socialists, you guys from the US must have a different definition of the word than the rest of us!
Since you appear to be a self proclaimed authority on the subject, if you provide your definition of a socialist we (non-eruopeans) will be better able to respond to your inquiry.
 

SaraSara

Registered
Furthermore.... (nice word, that...) there's nothing wrong with socialism, IMHO. Holland is a socialist country, as is Sweden.

So is Uruguay, for that fact, and it works far better than Argentina does.
 

sergio

Registered
Let´s not get off the track. Like it or not, the bill will soon be a law. HOW WILL IT AFFDECT EXPATS? From what I understand, legal permanent residents in foeign countries will be excluded. People like Fred Mertz will have to pay for the insurance or pay the penalty. Also, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST? And what about low income people? How can they pay?
 

citygirl

Registered
This should be a good starting point:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html

The penalty would start in 2014:

  • The penalty will be phased in, starting at $95 or 1 percent of income in 2014, whichever is higher, and rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016. But families would not pay more than $2,085.
  • American Indians don’t have to buy insurance. Those with religious objections or a financial hardship can also avoid the requirement. And if you would pay more than 8 percent of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage.
  • Those who are exempt, or under 30, can buy a policy that only pays for catastrophic medical costs. It must allow for three primary care visits a year as well.
  • Instead of using the poverty threshold to exempt low-income people, the bill would exempt households with incomes below the tax-filing threshold — $9,350 for individuals and $18,700 for couples in 2009.
 

sergio

Registered
citygirl said:
This should be a good starting point:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html

The penalty would start in 2014:

  • The penalty will be phased in, starting at $95 or 1 percent of income in 2014, whichever is higher, and rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016. But families would not pay more than $2,085.
  • American Indians don’t have to buy insurance. Those with religious objections or a financial hardship can also avoid the requirement. And if you would pay more than 8 percent of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage.
  • Those who are exempt, or under 30, can buy a policy that only pays for catastrophic medical costs. It must allow for three primary care visits a year as well.
  • Instead of using the poverty threshold to exempt low-income people, the bill would exempt households with incomes below the tax-filing threshold — $9,350 for individuals and $18,700 for couples in 2009.
So how does this help low income people? They are exempted from having to pay for insurance and thus UNINSURED!

Also if families have to pay no more than $2,095 (presumably per annum), what do individuals have to pay?
 

citygirl

Registered
Did you read the link I posted - I think you will find it offers answers to the majority of your questions.

If you are uninsured, you can get coverage through Medicaid Top
You can obtain coverage through Medicaid


Starting in 2014, anyone with an income below 133 percent of the poverty level — or about $29,327 in 2009 for a family of four — will be eligible for a rejuvenated Medicaid program. Medicaid’s often anemic reimbursements will be increased to the same level as Medicare, making more doctors willing to accept it.



If you are uninsured, you can get coverage from exchanges Top
If your employer does not cover you, and you make too much to qualify for Medicaid, you can buy from private insurers through exchanges starting in 2014.



  • Coverage for those making up to four times the poverty threshold — $88,200 for a family of four in 2009 — will get subsidies on a sliding scale. That means you will pay somewhere between 3 percent and 9.5 percent of your income for insurance, and the government will cover the rest.
  • Health plans will cover at least 60 percent of medical costs. Insurers will also have to offer more tiers that cover up to 90 percent of costs for additional premiums.
  • Premiums of older people can be no more than three times as expensive as those of younger people.
  • There will also be limits on overhead and profit. Insurers will be required to spend between 80 cents and 85 cents of every premium dollar on health care. They have been paying about 74 cents on average.
  • Health plans on exchanges can offer abortion coverage. But if they do, subscribers who get federal subsidies will have to make separate premium payments for the coverage. States can prohibit abortion coverage.
 

SaraSara

Registered
ReemsterCARP said:
Sara,
Let me assure you that Holland is not a socialist country. It's at best a Social-Democratic country (which is decidedly different from a Socialist country). In the Heritage Foundation // Wall Street Journal Index of Economic freedoms, it scored 75/100 and is the world's 15th freeest country. http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Netherlands
I did not mean anything negative about Holland being socialist. My Dutch in-laws in Amsterdam and Eindhoven call it Socialism, but perhaps I missed the "Democratic" part of it.

I meant socialist in the sense that many of the people's basic needs are provided by the government, free of charge. Taxes are high but schools are both good and free, and the same goes for health care (the government even provides cars for the handicapped). On several occasions I stayed a couple of months with my relatives and could see that their standard of living was excellent, the streets were clean and orderly, and there was no crime.

Workers are protected: my in-laws could not start remodeling their home before building a heated Quonset hut for the workers to have their breaks. Building codes are strictly set and enforced - for instance, electric outlets have to be a meter off the floor, to prevent children from being electrocuted.

If that is Socialism (Democratic), the world could use more of it.
 

StevePalermo

Registered
steveinbsas said:
Since you appear to be a self proclaimed authority on the subject, if you provide your definition of a socialist we (non-eruopeans) will be better able to respond to your inquiry.
No, I'm not getting into that game. From experience on other blogs where I used to post it could go on forever and I'm not doing that again. I didn't call the bill socialism, just wondered if the guy who did (Denver?) could justify it.
 
Top