Obamacare Health Insurance

[mechengr2000]

So, with Obamacare Health Insurance, I plan to say on my parent's insurance plan throughout grad school. (Obamacare allows you to stay on your parents plan until age 26.) I'm doing this because my parents have a very good plan.

I was offered health insurance as part of the compensation package I accepted at my grad school, starting fall 2011. If I waive this health insurance, will my cash stipend increase since the school would no longer paying ~$1000 to insure me?

Is anyone else in this situation?

It is my understanding that in the "real world," when one is offered a job in industry, if you turn down a part of your benefits package, the money that would have gone into it just goes back into your paycheck.

Edited May 17, 2011 by mechengr2000

[IRdreams]

I'm pretty sure that is not the way it works in grad school since it is a waiver and not consider part of pay benefits in gradschool. The logical corrolary is that if your college decided to charge 5,000 less and you had a waiver that wouldn't be shunted to your stipend, they would just be paying themselves less.

[StrangeLight]

1. obamacare? really?

2. the school in all likelihood won't give you anything back if you opt out of their health insurance. they don't deduct the cost of insurance from your paycheck, they give you the insurance for "free" and tell you it's valued at a few hundred dollars a month. i tried to opt out of my school's insurance, because i already have great coverage, and their insurance runs the cost of over $200/month. gouged. but they told me i wouldn't see that extra $200 because they technically don't charge me for the insurance.

[rainbowworrier]

In the job I am currently in, I pay a portion of my health insurance, and the employer pays a significantly higher portion. That said, if I insured family members, my portion would rise significantly. Employers frequently foot the bill for a portion of the employee's insurance, but I have never found it to be the case that if you opt out of their plan (like when I was on my ex husband's insurance instead), that they pay you the difference, or more money at all.

[runonsentence]

1. obamacare? really?

2. the school in all likelihood won't give you anything back if you opt out of their health insurance. they don't deduct the cost of insurance from your paycheck, they give you the insurance for "free" and tell you it's valued at a few hundred dollars a month. i tried to opt out of my school's insurance, because i already have great coverage, and their insurance runs the cost of over $200/month. gouged. but they told me i wouldn't see that extra $200 because they technically don't charge me for the insurance.

This.

Edited May 22, 2011 by runonsentence

[BCHistory]

2. the school in all likelihood won't give you anything back if you opt out of their health insurance. they don't deduct the cost of insurance from your paycheck, they give you the insurance for "free" and tell you it's valued at a few hundred dollars a month. i tried to opt out of my school's insurance, because i already have great coverage, and their insurance runs the cost of over $200/month. gouged. but they told me i wouldn't see that extra $200 because they technically don't charge me for the insurance.

This is inaccurate; insurance policy varies by school. My university, for example, deducts the cost of my health insurance from my monthly paycheck.

Edited June 7, 2011 by BCEmory08

[ZeChocMoose]

This is inaccurate; insurance policy varies by school. My university, for example, deducts the cost of my health insurance from my monthly paycheck.

I think the point that was trying to be made is the cost of healthcare is often divided between the university and the individual. If your individual contribution is $0, then no you won't see a difference in your stipend if you decline the university's health insurance. If your individual contribution is > 0 and you decline the health insurance, then yes you will retain that portion of money that they would have deducted for healthcare costs.

[hungryhungryhipster]

Though I am Canadian, if I were you I wouldn't count on Obama's health care plan standing up in the courts. As much as I think it's a great step forward for your country, I know those mouth-breathing Republicans will stop at nothing to see it struck down.

[CommPhD]

It depends on where you go to school. For my TA package, I am offered health insurance. My university covers something like $450/month in health insurance premiums, and since the single insurance plans offered cost less than $450, I do not pay any monthly charges, and the university covers it all (though of course I am responsible for the deductible, co-pays, etc.).

I too was able to back onto my parents' health insurance in January, so I opted out of my university health insurance and am now given an extra $140 on top of my monthly stipend. $140 isn't much compared to the $450 the university was willing to pay to the health insurance company, but it is something, and the $140 extra helps out immensely.

So, I know this thread is old, but it's never too late to check with your benefits office and see if they allow you to opt out of health insurance or opt into flex-cash or something similar.

[Genomic Repairman]

To the political class,

Fuckin' Obamacare. Leave me the fuck alone already, and stop pretending like you own me, seriously!

- Aaron

Not sure how germane this is to the conversation, but then again I have little expectations for you.

[waveaflag]

using the term obamacare makes you sound like a complete moron. pretty sure britain didn't call the nhs churchill-care or something equally less poetic.

[pheonixx]

Whatever you want to call it, I love Obamacare. I work 4 research positions to pay for rent, bills, etc. and wouldn't have health care if it weren't for this plan. Taking time off is almost essential to get into my graduate program but I want to be productive and do research instead of just getting a random full time position with health care. I work really hard and I'm glad worrying about how to pay for health issues isn't part of my stress load.

[wuerzburg]

using the term obamacare makes you sound like a complete moron. pretty sure britain didn't call the nhs churchill-care or something equally less poetic.

Not that im from the UK or anything but Churchill didnt have anything to do with the NHS, he was kicked out of government and the new Labour government introduced the NHS under Attlee and Bevan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)

or for the hard of thinking/lazy

[crazedandinfused]

Wow. It's quite astonishing how giving people healthcare has been so controversial. What a country! (Yes, I know that there are costs to it. I understand public policy. It's just that when you run those costs out over the long-term they actually end up paying for themselves and eventually being a net benefit.)

[long_time_lurker]

Wow. It's quite astonishing how giving people healthcare has been so controversial. What a country! (Yes, I know that there are costs to it. I understand public policy. It's just that when you run those costs out over the long-term they actually end up paying for themselves and eventually being a net benefit.)

It's controversial because in order to give to the recipients of the free or subsidized health care you must take away from others. It can be especially offensive when the government compels citizens to fund other people's insurance (through higher taxes and higher premiums) as well as mandate people to buy insurance.

It isn't giving health care that people don't like. It's forcing other people to give health care. I disagree that having a monopolized industry is economical or helpful, but that's really beside the point I usually focus on. The point is that charity is a personal thing - I can't go around forcing people to give to charity.

Not that I want to turn this into a debate, I just wanted to point out that national health care isn't giving anything.

Excellent post.

There is no such thing as "free health care", "free food stamps", "free tuition", etc. Someone is paying for it, and this payment happens through the redistribution of wealth. If one wants to use the fruits of one's own labor to engage in philanthropy, that's great; however, the government shouldn't be taking from a person unwillingly what that person has rightfully earned to redistribute it others so that they can reap what they have not sowed.

[crazedandinfused]

There is no such thing as "free health care", "free food stamps", "free tuition", etc. Someone is paying for it, and this payment happens through the redistribution of wealth. If one wants to use the fruits of one's own labor to engage in philanthropy, that's great; however, the government shouldn't be taking from a person unwillingly what that person has rightfully earned to redistribute it others so that they can reap what they have not sowed.

I've typed like seven different responses to this and I don't know whether to respond with a moral argument or a statement of objective fact. Objectively, the very nature of government is re-distributive. Example: when an army is raised, the protection which that army affords all citizens of the state is distributed equally while the costs are concentrated within a smaller proportion of the population (usually economic elites). The very nature of government is extraction and subsequent re-distribution. See Mancur Olson, 1993: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2938736

Now, if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't have government at all, then we can discuss this matter on those terms. However we should be mindful that many of the conveniences which we associate with modern life (roads, an electrical grid, potable water, toilets which you can throw used toilet paper down, the absence of roving bands of ax wielding ruffians) are the result of the growth of government. The private sector simply would not build an interstate highway system nor provide an efficient police force (see, much of the 3rd world and an outfit named Halliburton). Not because the private sector is evil, but because undertaking such a project simply isn't profitable in the short-run.

Beyond the obvious need for government to provide public goods, one could make the argument that government is needed to provide private goods as well, again through re-distribution. Subsidies to agricultural interests benefit a relatively small proportion of the population while imposing a general cost on John and Jane Q. Taxpayer. It is a gross inconsistency, as well as the height of hypocrisy, that many individuals who are virulently opposed to re-distribution support it when it benefits their own particular industry (see Charles Grassley re corn).

None of this even addresses the reprehensible 'moral argument' made regarding 'rightful gains' and 'reaping what one has sowed'. Remember that we are talking about healthcare! In the richest country the world has ever known it is a shameful tragedy and a blight on our national conscience that people should go without healthcare. Anybody with a thread of morality or compassion, who knows the history of the 20th century and is cognizant of the way in which much of the world lives, would agree that the right to live and be healthy is a basic human right.

Edited January 21, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[ZeeMore21]

It's controversial because in order to give to the recipients of the free or subsidized health care you must take away from others. It can be especially offensive when the government compels citizens to fund other people's insurance (through higher taxes and higher premiums) as well as mandate people to buy insurance.

Excellent post.

There is no such thing as "free health care", "free food stamps", "free tuition", etc. Someone is paying for it, and this payment happens through the redistribution of wealth. If one wants to use the fruits of one's own labor to engage in philanthropy, that's great; however, the government shouldn't be taking from a person unwillingly what that person has rightfully earned to redistribute it others so that they can reap what they have not sowed.

You do know that the people who use services such as food stamps and Medicare have also contributed to society through work and taxes right? I don't quite think its fair to cast those who are in need as people who are just lazy leeches. That is disrespectful and untrue....I think you ought to go out and really see who are actually using these resources. Are there some taking advantage of safety-net programs? Definitely. But you will mostly find people who do work but still can't make ends meet....should they go hungry and without healthcare? How about those who lost their jobs? How about hard-working students like me and you who need food stamps?

Your "reap without sowing" comment is so misinformed it's not even funny. It just annoys me when people stereotype those in need without really knowing what's going on.

Edited January 21, 2012 by ZeeMore21

[crazedandinfused]

You do know that the people who use services such as food stamps and Medicare have also contributed to society through work and taxes right? I don't quite think its fair to cast those who are in need as people who are just lazy leeches. That is disrespectful and untrue....I think you ought to go out and really see who are actually using these resources. Are there some taking advantage of safety-net programs? Definitely. But you will mostly find people who do work but still can't make ends meet....should they go hungry and without healthcare? How about those who lost their jobs? How about hard-working students like me and you who need food stamps?

Your "reap without sowing" comment is so misinformed it's not even funny. It just annoys me when people stereotype those in need without really knowing what's going on.

The level of self absorbed, delusional ignorance truly is monumental.......

[ZeeMore21]

The level of self absorbed, delusional ignorance truly is monumental.......

This. I just want to know when the needy became such villains. Such a shame.

[crazedandinfused]

McDeviit,

The way I see it there are several different deficiencies at play in your argument.

First, your assertion that people "cling to parental figures" in government out of "dependancy [sic]" is callous, narrow-minded, a historical and almost ad hominem. People have needed the state to intervene on their behalf at many important times, for many valid reasons throughout history (Alabama circa 1963), and this did not constitute dependency; rather it was needed to inject justice into a terribly unjust situation. It is for this reason that I have voted your post down. If you want to have an intelligent discussion that is fine, but please do not resort to sentimental rhetoric entirely divorced from historical reality.

Regarding your assertion that "The conveniences we have are despite the growth of government" I would again ask you to think historically while urging you to compare the US banking, healthcare, and housing sectors with their thoroughly privatized counterparts in much of the developing world. Banking and housing were horribly inefficient before the implementation of regulation - hence the boom and bust cycles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And as far as healthcare goes, well if you would like us all to have early 20th century healthcare (in terms of distribution, not quality) then there is something seriously wrong with you. Again, if you are going to make these arguments I suggest you actually do some homework first. Oh, and my argument was not that it wouldn;t be profitable for the private sector to build roads. It was that it wouldn't be profitable for the private sector to build efficient roads. This is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. I refer you to the World Bank's website.

And your understanding of government is infantile at best. The "public need" is aggregated into interest groups who compete for power (either through elections or force). The interest group with the most force (either ideological or material) then assumes the role of governance, part of which is to provide public goods. The definition of public goods is something which affords a benefit to all, and the usage of that benefit by one person does not detract from the benefit of another. Now, healthcare as it currently exists is obviously not a public good. But it is precisely my argument that just like national defense, it should be. This country has more than enough material wealth to provide healthcare for all of its inhabitants.

I sincerely advise you to spend some time among the less privileged. Your callous, narrow-minded, US-centric attitude is particularly noxious when it is couched in your uninformed faux-intellectualism. That is why I voted your post down, and why I will continue to vote down any posts which reflect that you still haven't done any serious research or thinking on this subject.

Edited January 21, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[ZeeMore21]

Zeemore, THIS is quite a thoughtless reply. Please note for future reference, and next time I piss you off I will refer you and you will not feel so bad about my posts

On your post, Zeemore, I didn't see where the reference to lazy leeches came from. I don't think it is there. I can't speak for others, but I don't think all welfare recipients are lazy. Safety net programs are fine. Collectives to provide such things are great. It isn't fine when a group forces everyone within some geological boundary to subscribe to the same safety net club.

Well you will see that I wasn't responding to you...it was the long-time-lurker. If you want to read over his or her post again, feel free to do so. He or she mentioned that people who receive benefits want to "reap what they haven't sowed". I

am pretty sure that this is suppose to imply that those who depend on programs haven't contributed enough to deserve them...hence I used the term "leeches." I had a problem with that argument, as I know many people who are on hard times and depend on these programs.

As hard as I am trying to follow and understand your argument, I still don't know what is wrong with expanding healthcare to millions of people who aren't insured. It costs way more tax dollars to take care of those who don't have health insurance and always have to turn to the ER and those with pre-existing health problems. Why not focus on preventative measures by making sure people can take care of themselves before they get sick? Wouldn't that be a better society overall? I am genuinely asking these questions.

Edited January 22, 2012 by ZeeMore21

[crazedandinfused]

Two things, and then I really have no desire to continue this conversation any further. You aren't absorbing any facts, I'm tired of this, and if you don't want universal healthcare then you should move to India or something.

First of all, of course all government is stealing by force. That's axiomatic. If you want to complain about that until you're blue in the face, that's your prerogative, but it is like the most enduring facet of human existence. Please read Hobbes. Please read The Jungle. If you were to do some simple research you would find out that even Adam Smith, the great believer in the markets, insisted that regulation (by the state) was important in order to "tame the animal spirit of the market." You have the privilege of being able to want to do away with government because you take for granted all the goods which government has provided you with. I seriously suggest spending some time in the 3rd world.

Secondly, your callous discussion of healthcare - i.e. the right to live a healthy and long life- as some sort of material privilege to be gained as opposed to a right which should be available to everyone in an advanced society is borderline pathological. When coupled with your assertion that being forced to pay for other people's goods is tantamount to slavery, these comments are indicative of a total lack of understanding of or sensitivity to actual oppression. There are myriad structural and institutional barriers which prevent people from competing on a level playing field for the "privilege" to not die of tuberculosis. Many of these barriers have their roots in the actual system of de jure slavery which defined this country's social, political, and economic system up until 1863 and which continued in various forms for many, many years afterwards (along shifting lines of race and class, of course) . It is inconceivable, extremely insensitive, and incredibly revealing of the mentality of many anti-government conservatives that you would even deign to make such a comparison. Many would argue that it is reflective of a residual and transmuted racism which still exists in some sections of the US population. I will not make that argument. I don't think you're a racist. But you clearly know very little about how the world works, and you simply spout whatever knee-jerk argument seems to make sense. The world is too complicated to be explained by mere rhetoric. The problem is that rhetoric, not facts, constitutes the basis of your argument.

Us liberals do not fear "losing our country" because we are secure in the knowledge that history (of which you seem to know very little) will leave the Republican Party behind; that anti-intellectualist, white-bred conservatism is a dying ideology. That said, nothing is scarier than a dying beast. Especially one which advocated injustice all along.

P.S. A quick google search reaveled that for Stanford: "federal non-ARRA research will grow from $418 million in 2009/10 to $446 million in 2010/11 and is expected to grow to $454 million in 2011/12" http://www.stanford....getBookFY12.pdf

Edited January 22, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[ZeeMore21]

"Sure there are people who depend on programs that steal from others. This doesn't make it right to steal. If I am starving, and steal bread, I am in the wrong, yet I am happy with obtaining the bread."

Again, why do you assume that everyone who is needy steals? I don't mind you taking an opposite decision on healthcare, but I have already told you that I have a problem with this stereotype, yet you keep referencing it. I'm done with this thread.

[long_time_lurker]

@crazed: You seem convinced that one that does not subscribe to left-wing ideas is ignoring "facts", delusionally ignorant, and needs to move to India (which actually has subsidized health care). Frankly if you change the left-wing ideas to right-wing ideas and keep the "love it or leave it" sentiment that's no different than the bile on the neo-con radio shows. No thanks.

@Zee: Interestingly enough, I had more of your point of view for quite a while (worked on Clinton's '96 campaign, became a Kucinich supporter later) and it was after I worked in Brownsville, Brooklyn - which includes some of the most impoverished census tracts in the US - that I started to change my mind. As such, my views don't come from ignorance of the poor or their plight. I just don't think an entitlement system works for them nor do I think it is fair for us who pay their freight. It's not about villainization or stereotyping. I don't think it's about ignorance of history either, because until the New Deal, the welfare state as we know it in the US just did not exist.

Since you mentioned it: a grad student stipend disqualifies not just a student but even a student supporting a family of 4 him/herself from receiving food stamps in NYS. Even someone working a minimum-wage job can't qualify. So I would reject the idea of these government social programs supporting the "hardworking". It was my experience that most of the support went to those who were entrenched in a culture of entitlement in which literally generations of family members were not gainfully employed, by choice.

I indeed don't think a person has a right to healthcare, nor does he have a right to food. He can work for it, provide for himself and his family, and ask for charity if he must, but I don't think it's a right. Though I don't agree with much of Aaron's arguments I do agree with the analogy that this is tantamount to requiring someone to give someone care or give someone food on demand. What if someone came to your house and demanded free food because it's his right? People say, well we're a rich country and no one should have to pay for healthcare, but a grocery store owner does not have to give away food to those who cannot pay, even though food is something that is fundamentally required for one to survive. We do not have a national system of supermarkets or force people to pay into food insurance programs. (The food analogy is not mine: Dr. Bodreaux from George Mason wrote an article in the Journal making the analogy to public education. The article is called "If Supermarkets Were Like Public Schools", if you're interested.)

[crazedandinfused]

Ugh, I really want this thread to die so I'll just respond as succinctly as possible.

Lurker,

If the idea of equality is a left-wing idea then I gladly stand by the notion that someone who does not believe that equality is something worth actively pursuing is delusional. That is being kind. One might more accurately (and perhaps pessimistically) say such sentiment is pure evil. The fact is that in a capitalist system the only way to achieve equality is through state intervention. I know that that will get all the right-wingers super aggravated, but so be it. It is the truth. Capitalism is about accumulation and exploitation, and it will always broaden and deepen inequality if left unchecked. After 30 years of neo-liberal economic policies, stagnant wages and increased debt should cause those who believe wholeheartedly in the "invisible hand" to re-think their position. Those who refuse to do so ARE either delusional or evil. That's not bile. It's political analysis.

Now, you did get me on the Indian healthcare. What I was trying to say was that if people love unchecked capitalism so much they should try living in the developing world for a little while. I should have said that with more eloquence and clarity.

When you say that you think that the "entitlement system" doesn't work for the poor, what exactly do you mean? (I would argue that a system which allows bankers to crash the national economy and get huge bonuses is more of an entitlement system than is welfare. And, no matter what they say to the contrary, that is precisely the sort of behavior which right-wing policymakers would perpetuate.) That it doesn't lift them out of poverty? Of course not. That it doesn't incentivize them to seek employment? There are a million other factors which contribute to people's drive to get a job. Such as, I dunno, the existence of jobs!!

Oh, and by the way I am totally for nationalized supermarkets. 100%. More fundamentally, grocers never swore a hippocratic oath.

PS: I thoroughly acknowledge, and am proud of the fact that I am a left-wing hyper-partisan. What differentiates me from the right-wing hyper-partisans is that I have empirical data to back up my claims. I don't believe in dialogue with the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Huckabee. I believe they should be fought and defeated, with their ideology preserved as a relic of all that could go wrong with humanity..

Edited January 23, 2012 by crazedandinfused