Find a Free Clinic or a Clinic for Low Income people. Call any Doctors Office or Hospital and they will know the Clinics in your area.
Or go to the County Hospital and apply for free care. Take 3 months bank statements, gov't ID, school ID, etc.
If you are a Veteran, go to the VA.
Actually, the fine will be a minimum of $695/year in 2016.
So the $95 in 2014 is a teaser rate.
HCR wrote:
Actually, the fine will be a minimum of $695/year in 2016.
So the $95 in 2014 is a teaser rate.
I'm told that the "fine" is actually a "tax," but I suppose it amounts to the same thing.
HCR wrote:
Actually, the fine will be a minimum of $695/year in 2016.
So the $95 in 2014 is a teaser rate.
Still much cheaper than buying health insurance. No way to know but I wonder how many people will choose to pay the fine.
So this is a good point of debate.
Will people be inclined to pay $700 and receive no value or come up with more money to actually be insured?
The fine/tax will go up over the years.
To the OP, what is your general financial situation and age and your reason for not having insurance?
dd wrote:
Assuming you're not trolling, you're finding out that the problem of not having insurance is a real one, and that all the rhetoric of "the uninsured get taken care of in ER's", or Ron Paul's idea that charity will help out, is a load of bull.
Your problem, and many others, is elective. So the ER solution won't work-- they'll do a quick look, verify that you have no life or limb threatening condition, and tell you to go see an orthopedist.
The pro-bono clinic option likely won't work-- these clinics are generally staffed by people volunteering their time, and as someone who does this once every 2 months or so, I can tell you there are zero orthopedists on the list of volunteers at the clinic I volunteer with. I won't speculate as to why that is. It's primarily internists and family medicine docs-- you may get lucky that one of them has an interest in musculoskeletal issues, but pretty unlikely.
Calling the orthopedists office and asking for prices is likely going to be like pulling teeth-- the receptionist will tell you that without knowing what the doctor is planning on ordering, s/he can't provide an estimate of prices. The orthopedist is unlikely to take the time to listen and guess what sort of tests will be ordered (time on the phone to talk to a potential patient is not billable, so it probably won't happen).
Best bet: take time off, see if it gets better on it's own-- most minor things will. If it doesn't, an MRI will likely be in your future, as will either surgery or a bunch of physical therapy, or both. All of which you can't afford if you can't afford insurance. So in the interim, try get some. Call your state health department, and see if you qualify for any low-income plans the state runs. And make sure you remember this when people tell you that we have the best healthcare system in the world.
I just graduated from college about 2 months ago. I come from a single parent household and have never had insurance. Up to this point, this has never an issue, the only serious operation I've ever had were stitches when I was 12. Every year I go for the an annual psychical, but nothing more than that. Last year I didn't go for one. I tried self-examination by researching but this is guessing and is useless seeing as I have no actual medical training.
I've been up to my ass looking for work and hope to land a job within the next year that offers decent benefits.
Oh and its funny you mentioned Ron Paul. He should go back and review Hayek. Hayek's views on insurance more left than Paul. But of course, Paul like most politicians choose what they want from academics to support their views and dispose of the other stuff that conflicts with their beliefs.
http://jim.com/hayek.htm"But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes."
The various subsidies that are offered to help with the cost make it roughly a wash; with the exception that by paying the penalty, you're still uninsured. But when you spend the same amount on insurance, you have something.
That being said, the current iteration of health insurance in the US is no protection from financial ruin, whereas a single-payer plan, like our neighbors to the north have, is. So while the ACA is somewhat helpful (shrinking the ranks of the uninsured, dis-allowing pre-existing conditions to be exclusionary, eliminating lifetime caps, allowing young adults to stay on family plans, expanding medicaid access, etc), it's not ideal.
None of which helps the OP now-- he needs insurance to pay for what is bound to be several thousand dollars of diagnostic work-up and treatment (that's if no surgery, if surgery, he's talking 10's of thousands). Best bet-- talk to the state health department, or a social worker, and see what sorts of plans might be available. Otherwise, plan on living with it.
Old Trick Knee wrote:
I just graduated from college about 2 months ago. I come from a single parent household and have never had insurance. Up to this point, this has never an issue, the only serious operation I've ever had were stitches when I was 12. Every year I go for the an annual psychical, but nothing more than that. Last year I didn't go for one. I tried self-examination by researching but this is guessing and is useless seeing as I have no actual medical training.
I've been up to my ass looking for work and hope to land a job within the next year that offers decent benefits.
Tell, as you were getting ready to graduate from college, and were looking for some individual insurance coverage to tide you over until you landed a good job with benefits, what was the cheapest package you were able to identify? I'm curious as to what the state-of-play is out there at the moment.
Ah, you are the perfect example for the health care discussion.
If you are under 26, you can be on your parent's insurance now.
But if they do not have insurance or are unable to add you then that does you no good.
Recent graduate, not working yet or may have some part time job wothout benefits.
Hope to find a job that provides benefits and that would be good.
You may not find that job for some time.
Then you are on your own for medical coverage.
Most people, especially young and healthy, would just forego insurance for some years.
The upcoming fine would be dependant on your income.
Then the question would come into what is available for insurance coverage in terms of price and/or subsidies.
The fine provokes people into making a decision whereas before they could just delay any decision as long as they could.
Once again, an insurance thread with a boatload of inaccurate or flat out wrong information.
OP, if you're out of work and have little or no income you'll qualify for Medicaid. Go apply and discover the joys of government run healthcare.
If you don't qualify for Medicaid, then you are making some money. As a healthy 24 year old you'll be able to buy very cheap insurance. Depending on your state, it will probably be under $100 per month. However, you might have to get rid of your unlimited cell phone plan to pay for it.
You also have the option of paying cash as several posters have pointed out.
To the knuckleheads who have said you can't get insurance with a preexisting condition. That's BS. I've been buying my own insurance since 2004. During that time I have changed insurers 4 times. I have preexisting arthritis and have never been denied insurance. I currently pay $195 a month to insure myself and my son in NC. So you can buy insurance NOW, even with a preexisting condition, you don't have to wait until 2014.
Regarding dd's comment that a single payer system like Canada will protect you financially is not true on several counts. First, each province has its own insurance, there isn't a single Canadian insurance system. Second, the provincial insurance only covers basic care. Canadians need to buy private insurance to cover things beyond the basics. An example - if you are diagnosed with cancer, the provincial insurance will cover the initial treatment, but if you need to take maintenance drugs to eradicate the cancer YOU need to pay for it through private insurance or by yourself. Third, Canada's system won't protect anyone from financial ruin. The 2nd leading cost of bankruptcy in Canada is medical bills.
Finally, what is it with you guys and MRIs? You don't need an MRI to diagnose a running injury. If you go to a doctor for an injury and the first thing he says is, "you need an MRI", he is ripping you off.
Please read up on medicaid eligibility; if you are without children or a disability, you are currently ineligible for medicaid, even if you are quite poor. This will change in 2014, but currently poverty alone does not make you eligible.
Here's a source for that:
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Eligibility/Eligibility.html
Speaking of which, can you provide one for you assertion that "The 2nd leading cost of bankruptcy in Canada is medical bills"? I'm certain the answer is no, but I'd love to see where you got that nugget from.
Fact is, medical bills are covered, although one certainly can get into financial trouble because of medical issues-- if you can't work, it doesn't matter that you medical bills are covered, you still need to pay for all your other debts, and if your condition prevents work, that's a problem. But it's a far smaller problem than here in the US, where you also have to deal with the medical bills.
As to why it's likely he needs an MRI- sure, he may not. Needs to be examined first. But a problem that persists after a year of off time is more likely to be structural than some new random ache, and MRI is the best way to define structural abnormalities, so it's likely he'll be having one.
My bad, on the Medicaid. You're right without a disability he can't get it. So he'll need to figure out how he'll pay to see the doctor, or he'll have to figure out how to pay for insurance. He's out of college. It's time to grow up.
Regarding Canada, I was working on memory from an article I read several years ago. Turns out medical bills is the 3rd leading cause of Canadian bankruptcies:
http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankruptcy/causes-of-bankruptcy-in-canada.htm
As I said before, the single payer system in Canada won't save you financial ruin.
Regarding the MRI, I'm talking about the boneheads who instantly say you need an MRI for diagnosis. I'm not disputing that an MRI might be the "best" way to define a structural abnormality, but there a far cheaper options that can achieve the same end. You can buy a $500,000 car that'll do 200 mph, but when the maximum speed limit is 70 mph a $5,000 car will do just as good a job.
I'll point you to the text in your link that contradicts you:
"The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America.
However, if you get sick or injured, and you are off work for a number of months, even with medical insurance your income is reduced, and that makes it more difficult to service your debts."
In essence, what I said: the medical bills are not the problem, the problem is if you aren't working, you aren't making money, and you can't pay your other bills. So yes, it stinks to be in a 200k mortgage with no income. But it stinks worse to be in the same situation and owe another 200k to the hospital.
dd wrote:
"However, if you get sick or injured, and you are off work for a number of months, even with medical insurance your income is reduced, and that makes it more difficult to service your debts."
In essence, what I said: the medical bills are not the problem, the problem is if you aren't working, you aren't making money, and you can't pay your other bills. So yes, it stinks to be in a 200k mortgage with no income. But it stinks worse to be in the same situation and owe another 200k to the hospital.
No kidding, if you aren't making money then you'll have a hard time paying your bills. But you originally said that Canada's single payer system would protect you from financial ruin. All I did was point out that that's not true. Why? Because their wonderful system that everyone likes to point to as a model for fixing the US, will NOT pay your medical bills beyond a certain point.
Canada is just like the US in that, the more money you have the better care you will get. There isn't a country in the world where that isn't true.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
Once again, an insurance thread with a boatload of inaccurate or flat out wrong information.
I like how you followed this comment up with some of your own inaccurate information.
Way to keep the ball rolling.
Fair enough on your point-- I wrote: "That being said, the current iteration of health insurance in the US is no protection from financial ruin, whereas a single-payer plan, like our neighbors to the north have, is".
I should have made it more clear, and written this: "That being said, the current iteration of health insurance in the US is no protection from financial ruin from medical bills, whereas a single-payer plan, like our neighbors to the north have, is."
But you still are confusing the difference between medical bills and being in trouble because you now can't work. Sure, if you are injured/ill to the extent you can't work, life sucks in every country. But to dismiss the benefit of not having huge medical bills hanging over your head (in addition to being unable to work) is just completely disingenuous.
If you can't see the difference, not much I can say further. But since you started in on this thread by complaining about a "boatload of inaccurate or flat out wrong information", and then proceeded to show that you had no idea about basic Medicaid facts, I guess I should just be happy that you left here with at least one new bit of knowledge, and not get greedy.
dd wrote:
The various subsidies that are offered to help with the cost make it roughly a wash; with the exception that by paying the penalty, you're still uninsured. But when you spend the same amount on insurance, you have something.
.
Can you provide details on these subsidies? Are you saying I can insure myself for $700/year?
dd wrote:
I should have made it more clear, and written this: "That being said, the current iteration of health insurance in the US is no protection from financial ruin from medical bills, whereas a single-payer plan, like our neighbors to the north have, is."
But you still are confusing the difference between medical bills and being in trouble because you now can't work.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer. The Canadian system will not pay all your medical bills. This is no different than in the US. If you have bills that run into the tens of thousands in Canada you can go bankrupt, even if you have a well paying job.
It's not a matter of being out of work, it's a matter of having big bills that the system won't cover. Even if it were a matter of employment, that doesn't change the fact that the Canadian system will NOT cover all your medical bills. So I'll correct you again, the Canadian system will NOT protect you from financial ruin.
Now if you want to modify your statement to say that the Canadian system will do a better job of covering your medical bills than some (not all) US insurance plans, then I'll agree with you. But neither system will 100% protect you.