Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by azinman2 on Monday January 04, 2016 @10:28PM (#10840910)

In CA, that's not the case. Our insurance went up maybe $50/person, but we got mental health care, acupuncture, and various other benefits we didn't have before. Oh and we have pre-existing conditions that would prevent us from being insured if we didn't have employer-based. And this is all PPO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by DrScump on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @12:23AM (#10841376)

You have coverage, but having care is a little different. For each of those features, do you have local providers who are willing to take on new patients and provide that care at the offered reimbursement rates? In much of CA, the answer is no.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by DrScump on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @11:10PM (#10848466)

Here's an example of the concept just today:

Fecteau’s story illustrates a common complaint by health-care advocates here: Dental insurance doesn’t mean access to care. Part of the problem: Washington has one of the nation’s lowest reimbursement rates for dental care provided through Medicaid..."

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/wash...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by azinman2 on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @04:55AM (#10842368)

For me in SF, it hasn't been an issue. We are PPO blue shield which everyone takes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by DrScump on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @08:30PM (#10847743)

SF proper has Healthy SF public coverage as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]